first commit afaq

[afaq.git] / anarchism_marxism_append3.txt

Appendix : Anarchism and Marxism

This appendix exists to refute some of the many anti-anarchist diatribes produced by Marxists. While we have covered why anarchists oppose Marxism in section H, we thought it would
be useful to reply to Marxist webpages and books whose content is not explicitly covered in that section. In this way we hope to indicate that Marxism is a flawed theory, flawed
even to the extent of not being able to present a honest critique of anarchism. This consistent attempt to smear anarchism and distort its history and ideas is no co-incidence --
rather it is required in order to present Marxism as the only viable form of socialism and, more importantly, to hide the fact that much of the populist Marxist rhetoric was, in
fact, said by anarchists first and latter stolen by Marxists to hide the authoritarian basis of their politics.

One last point. We are aware that we repeat many of our arguments in these appendices. That, unfortunately, is avoidable for two reasons. Firstly, Marxists usually repeat the same
false assertions against anarchism and so we have to answer them each time they appear. Marxists seem to subscribe to the point of view that repeating an error often enough makes
it true. Secondly, we have tried to make each appendix as self-contained as possible and that meant repeating certain material and arguments to achieve this. We hope the reader
understands.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below"

In chapter three of his pamphlet Socialism from Below, David McNally decides to expose (what he calls) "The Myth Of Anarchist Libertarianism." In reality, his account is so
distorted and, indeed, dishonest that all it proves is that Marxists will go to extreme lengths to attack anarchist ideas. As Brain Morris points out, defending the Leninist
tradition and ideology "implies . . . a compulsive need to rubbish anarchism." [Ecology & Anarchism, p. 128] McNally's pamphlet is a classic example of this. As we will prove, his
"case" is a mishmash of illogical assertions, lies and, when facts do appear, their use is almost always a means of painting a false picture of reality.

It must be stressed that there is nothing new or original in McNally's pamphlet. It is simply an unthinking repetition of previous Marxists attacks on anarchism, starting with
Marx's dishonest diatribe against Proudhon The Poverty of Philosophy, and is mostly based on Hal Draper's The Two Souls of Socialism (McNally states he "should also record here a
debt of inspriation of [this] now-out-of-print pamphlet by Draper"). While McNally's errors are commonplace within what passes for Marxist scholarship, this does not excuse his
repeating of them without first checking their accuracy (or, more correctly, their inaccuracy). If more Marxists took the time to validate their prejudices and assumptions against
what Proudhon, Bakunin and other anarchists wrote then it would be possible to have a real discussion on what genuine socialism (one, as Proudhon and Bakunin stressed long before
Marxists appropriated the term, "from below") entails.

It must be noted that since this appendix was first written in 2000, David McNally has distanced himself from his pamphlet's critique of anarchism. In an end-note in a book written
in 2006 he described this welcome rethink:

    "I dissent from Draper's one-sided critique of anarchism . . . Draper is not fair to some of the currents within social anarchism. I also reject my own restatement of Draper's
    interpretation in the first edition of my booklet Socialism from Below" [Another World Is Possible: Globalization & Anti-Capitalism, p. 393]

While it seems unlikely this was in response to reading our critique, it does show that it was correct. Unfortunately it took McNally over 20 years to acknowledge that his essay
from 1984 gave a distinctly distorted account of anarchism (a distortion originally circulated in Marxist circles in the 1960s with Draper's pamphlet). Perhaps significantly,
McNally no longer seems to be associated with the sister organisations of the British Socialist Workers Party (a group whose distortions of anarchism are many and infamous). Sadly,
the damage has been done and his and Draper's flawed account of anarchism (and Marxism) has become all-too-commonplace within radical circles -- even in libertarian circles,
some take these assertions on Proudhon and Bakunin at face value and do not seek to verify the claims made. This is unfortunate for, as we will see, while sometimes correct (for
example, Proudhon's disgusting anti-feminism) most of the claims are false or, at best, half-truths turned into full-lies by ignoring context or other relevant facts.

We hope that this reply will ensure today's radicals will gain a fuller understanding of the ideas -- and limitations! -- of Proudhon and Bakunin and, more importantly, how they
influenced subsequent anarchists and the development of libertarian ideas. It will also allow an informed discussion between Marxists and Anarchists on their areas of agreement and
disagreement. McNally now argues that "it may be more helpful to try and defend a common political vision -- such as socialism from below or libertarian socialism -- as a point
of reference" rather than fixate over labels like "Marxism" or "anarchism." [ Op. Cit., p. 347] As we noted in our critique of his pamphlet, the term "socialism from below" has a
distinctly anarchist feel to it, a feel distinctly at odds with Leninist ideology and practice. Moreover, as shown below, Lenin explicitly denounced "from below" as an anarchist
idea -- and his practice once in power showed that "from above" is part and parcel of Leninism in action. Sadly, most Leninists are unaware of this.

Finally, many Marxists reject Leninism: some for the original ideas of Marxism, such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain and its sister parties and some, like the council
communists, for extension of them in the direction of revolutionary anarchist conclusions. As such, this critique should not be taken for a blanket rejection of all Marxists but
rather a specific form of it, namely Leninism. Nor should it be taken for a blanket rejection of everything Marx or Marxists have argued. There any many forms of anarchism and many
forms of Marxism, some of which are closer than others.

Many of the issues discussed in this appendix are also explored in section H of the FAQ and that should also be consulted.

1. Introduction

McNally begins by noting that "Anarchism is often considered to represent [a] current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian. It is hailed in some quarters
as the only true political philosophy [of] freedom." Needless to say, he thinks that the "reality is quite different" and argues that "[f]rom its inception anarchism has been a
profoundly anti-democratic doctrine. Indeed the two most important founders of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael Bakunin, developed theories that were elitist and
authoritarian to the core." We will discover the truth of this assertion later.

First we must note that McNally uses the typical Marxist approach to attacking anarchism -- namely to attack anarchists rather than anarchism as such. British Anarchist Albert
Meltzer summarised the flaws in this perspective well:

    "Marxist-Leninists, faced with Anarchism, find that by its nature it undermines all the suppositions basic to Marxism. Marxism was held out to be the basic working class
    philosophy (a belief which has utterly ruined the working class movement everywhere). It holds that the industrial proletariat cannot owe its emancipation to anyone but
    themselves alone. It is hard to go back on that and say that the working class is not yet ready to dispense with authority placed over it . . . Marxism normally tries to
    refrain from criticising anarchism as such -- unless driven to doing so, when it exposes its own authoritarianism . . . and concentrates its attacks not on Anarchism, but on
    Anarchists." [Anarchism: Arguments for and Against , p. 62]

So when reading this or any critique of anarchism always remember that few people are completely consistent libertarians and determine whether the words written reflect a flaw
in anarchism as such or whether they reflect a personal flaw of the thinker in question. Once this common-sense position is taken it quickly becomes clear that anything valid in
McNally's critique highlights the flaws of individuals who did not consistently rise to the levels implied by their ideas. This, most obviously, is the case with Proudhon's sexism
which is in contradiction with his support for liberty, equality and federalism. Unsurprisingly, his contemporary Joseph De'jacque wrote a critique of Proudhon's sexist views in
1857, urging him to renounce "this gender aristocracy that would bind us to the old regime" and "speak out against man's exploitation of woman.": "Do not describe yourself as an
anarchist, or be an anarchist through and through" ["On Being Human", pp. 68-71, Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas, Vol. 1, Robert Graham (ed.), p. 71] Later
anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin likewise applied anarchist principles consistently on this issue, a fact McNally cannot bring himself to admit.

Second, McNally lamely notes that "[w]hile later anarchists may have abandoned some of the excesses of their founding fathers their philosophy remains hostile to ideas of mass
democracy and workers' power." Thus, we have the acknowledgement that not all anarchists share the same ideas and that anarchist theory has developed since 1876 (the year of
Bakunin's death). This is to be expected as anarchists are not Proudhonists or Bakuninists -- we do not name ourselves after one person, rather we take what is useful from
libertarian writers and ignore the rubbish. Malatesta's words are applicable here: "We follow ideas and not men, and rebel against this habit of embodying a principle in a man."
[Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 199] However, this is beside the point as McNally's account of the ideas of Proudhon and Bakunin is simply false -- indeed, so false as to
make you wonder if he is simply incompetent as a scholar or seeks to present a patchwork of lies as fact and "theory."

Third, McNally's approach rests on selective quoting, lack of context and an unwillingness to research the assertions he is making. This is important as we are discussing thinkers
who wrote over a period of many decades and whose works and letters reflected the highs and lows of a person's life as well as the social movement they were part of. This means
that in the depths of personal crisis or the repression of popular movements even the most consistent thinker can write passages which are in contradiction to the thrust of the
works they are best known for. To quote such words from, say, private letters and ignore the books and articles which reflect a thinker's ideas best and which influenced others
presents a false picture, particularly if the context within which the letters were written are unmentioned. So it would be a distortion of the ideas of Marx and Engels to quote
the numerous anti-Semitic insults against specific individuals from their private letters. As would be expected, they were men of their age and expressed themselves in ways which
today are, rightly, considered unacceptable (for those interested in such matters, Peter Fryer's essay "Engels: A Man of his Time" should be consulted [John Lea and Geoff Pilling
(eds.), The condition of Britain: Essays on Frederick Engels]). However, their few public racist comments could be considered worthy of note -- although, if so, then they should,
like those of Proudhon and Bakunin, be placed in the context of their other ideas and the culture they lived in rather than being used as an excuse to ignore their contributions to
socialism. Sadly, McNally -- like many Marxists -- fails to do this, preferring dismissive finger-pointing instead.

Lastly, McNally ignores the anti-democratic, authoritarian and elitist aspects of his own political tradition. Given that leading Bolsheviks like Lenin, Trotsky and Zinoviev
publicly advocated party dictatorship and one-man management of production, it is a distortion to ignore this when discussing "Socialism from Below". Simply put, while anarchists
have consistently advocated communal and industrial self-management since 1840 to today, the Marxist tradition has not.

McNally's pamphlet, as will become clear, does not present anything new. It simply repeats what is sadly all-to-often the received wisdom about anarchists and anarchism in Marxist
circles. As such, it is worth the time and effort to reply to. Not only will it show the limitations of the Marxist position on anarchism, it will also afford us the opportunity to
show that not only is anarchism a more genuine "Socialism from Below" than Leninism but also that many of the ideas Marxists consider as their own were first argued by Proudhon and
Bakunin.

In short, we will show why "Anarchism is often considered to represent current of radical thought that is truly democratic and libertarian" by contrasting what McNally asserts
about it and what anarchist thinkers actually advocated. This will, unfortunately, produce a reply longer than the initial claims but this is unavoidable. We need to provide
extensive quotes and arguments simply in order to show the weakness of McNally's assertions and to indicate where his own tradition advocated notions he -- inaccurately -- attacks
anarchism for.

2. Is anarchism the politics of the "small property owner"?

McNally does start out by acknowledging that "anarchism developed in opposition to the growth of capitalist society. What's more, anarchist hostility to capitalism centred on
defence of the liberty of the individual." However, he then distorts this actual historical development by arguing that "the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the freedom
of the working class to make collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the freedom of the small property owner -- the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman -- against the
encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise."

Such a statement is, to say the least, a total distortion of the facts of the situation. Nor is it original. McNally is simply repeating Marx's assertions against Proudhon who,
Marx claimed, "wants to soar as the man of science above the bourgeois and the proletarians" but "is merely the petty bourgeois, continually tossed back and forth between capital
and labour, political economy and communism." [Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 178] It should be noted that Marx had not always thought this of the Frenchman:



    "Not only does Proudhon write in the interest of the proletarians he is himself a proletarian, an ouvrier [worker]. His work [What is Property?] is a scientific manifesto of
    the French proletariat." [Op. Cit., vol. 4, p. 41]

The change in perspective is unsurprising given that Marx thought his own ideology was that of the proletariat (whether the proletariat knew it or not) and, given his disagreements
with Proudhon, the Frenchman had to represent some other class. However, if we reject the assumption that classes only have one theory associated with them, then the weakness of
the Marxist assertion becomes clear -- particularly given that today there are no mass Marxist parties in spite of the fact that now, unlike in Marx's day, the proletariat is the
majority of the working class in most of the world's countries.

It is important to remember that at the end of the 1840s over 80% of the population of France and Germany were peasants or artisans -- what Marxists term the "petit-bourgeois". As
Marx and Engels admitted in The Communist Manifesto, in "countries like France" the peasants "constitute far more than half of the population." This remained the case well after
Proudhon's death in 1865, with Marx commenting in the early 1870s that "the peasant . . . forms a more of less considerable majority . . . in the countries of the West European
continent." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 493 and p. 543] As Proudhon himself noted in 1851, in "a population of 36 millions, there are 24 millions occupied with agriculture" and of
the remaining 12 million there where only 6 million "composing in part the wage-working class" [Property is Theft!, p. 558]

This social context is important and it is difficult to understand the positions thinkers took unless it taken into account. In the words of anarchist Gustav Landauer, Proudhon's
socialism "of the years 1848 to 1851 was the socialism of the French people in the years 1848 to 1851. It was the socialism that was possible and necessary at that moment. Proudhon
was not a Utopian and a prophet; not a Fourier and not a Marx. He was a man of action and realisation." [For Socialism, p. 108] Historian K. Steven Vincent makes the same point,
arguing that Proudhon's "social theories may not be reduced to a socialism for only the peasant class, nor was it a socialism only for the petite bourgeois; it was a socialism
of and for French workers. And in the mid-nineteenth century . . . most French workers were still artisans. . . French labour ideology largely resulted from the real social
experiences and aspirations of skilled workers . . . Proudhon's thought was rooted in the same fundamental reality, and therefore understandably shared many of the same hopes and
ideals." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, pp. 5-6] It is no coincidence, therefore, that when he was elected to the French Parliament in 1848
most of the votes cast for him were from "working class districts of Paris -- a fact which stands in contrast to the claims of some Marxists, who have said he was representative
only of the petite bourgeoisie." [Robert L. Hoffman, Revolutionary Justice, p. 136]

Proudhon's position was a distinctly sensible and radical position to take:

    "While Marx was correct in predicting the eventual predominance of the industrial proletariat vis-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. . .

    "Nor does Marx seem to have been correct concerning the revolutionary nature of the industrial proletariat. It has become a cliche' of French labour history that during the
    nineteenth century artisans were much oftener radical than industrial workers. Some of the most militant action of workers in late nineteenth century France seems to have
    emerged from the co-operation of skilled, urbanised artisanal workers with less highly skilled and less urbanised industrial workers." [Vincent, Op. Cit., pp. 282-3]

The fruits of this union included the Paris Commune, an event in which the followers of Proudhon played an important role and which both McNally and Marx praise (see section 12 for
more discussion on this).

In short, Marx's earlier summation of Proudhon was correct -- his ideas reflected the ideas and interests of the French working class. Proudhon addressed himself to both the
peasant/artisan and the proletariat. This is to be expected from a libertarian form of socialism as, at the time of his writing, the majority of working people were peasants and
artisans and, as noted above, this predominance of artisan/peasant workers in the French economy lasted well after his (and Marx's) death. Not to take into account the artisan/
peasant would have meant the dictatorship of a minority of working people over the rest of them (as we discuss in section H.1.1 this was also a key reason for Bakunin's rejection
of Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat"). Given that in chapter 4 of his pamphlet McNally states that Marxism aims for a "democratic and collective society . . . based upon the
fullest possible political democracy" his attack on Proudhon's concern for the artisan and peasant is doubly strange. Either you support the "fullest possible political democracy"
and so your theory must take into account artisans and peasants or you restrict political democracy and replace it with rule by the few.

Unsurprisingly, then, Proudhon argued in 1841 that he "preach[ed] emancipation to the proletarians; association to the workers." [Op. Cit., p. 157] However, as McNally notes, he
"oppose[d] trade unions." and did not see them as the means of achieving this for it was "not by such methods that the workingmen will attain to wealth and -- what is a thousand
times more precious than wealth -- liberty." [Proudhon, System of Economical Contradictions, p. 150] However, this did not mean that he was rejected the idea that the working class
(in its three sections of wage-workers, artisan and peasants) would liberate itself. While fundamentally a reformist, Proudhon recognised that self-liberation was only genuine form
of liberation and so had "always thought that the proletariat must emancipate itself without the help of the government." [Property is Theft! , 306] Given this, it is unsurprising
that Proudhon saw social change as coming from "below" by the collective action of the working class:

    "If you possess social science, you know that the problem of association consists in organising . . . the producers, and by this organisation subjecting capital and
    subordinating power. Such is the war that you have to sustain: a war of labour against capital; a war of liberty against authority; a war of the producer against the
    non-producer; a war of equality against privilege . . . to conduct the war to a successful conclusion . . . it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some
    variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [Op. Cit.,
    p. 225]

During the 1848 revolution he urged "a provisional committee be set up to orchestrate exchange, credit and commerce between workers" which would "liaise with similar committees
set up in the main cities of France" and "under the aegis of these committees, a body representative of the proletariat be formed in Paris . . . in opposition to the bourgeoisie's
representation." This ensured that "a new society be founded in the heart of the old society". He later stressed the "organisation of popular societies was the pivot of democracy,
the cornerstone of republican order" and these "clubs . . . assemblies, popular societies" would ensure "the organisation of universal suffrage in all its forms, of the very
structure of Democracy itself." [Op. Cit., p. 321, p. 407 and p. 461] As Daniel Gue'rin summarised, "in the midst of the 1848 Revolution," Proudhon "sketched out a minimum
libertarian program: progressive reduction in the power of the State, parallel development of the power of the people from below, through what he called clubs" which today we
"would call councils." [Anarchism, pp. 152-3]

Clearly, even if he (wrongly) rejected trade unionism Proudhon did support, to quote McNally, the "the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society." Indeed,
as one historian notes, there was "close similarity between the associational ideal of Proudhon . . . and the program of the Lyon Mutualists" and that there was "a remarkable
convergence [between these ideas], and it is likely that Proudhon was able to articulate his positive program more coherently because of the example of the silk workers of Lyon.
The socialist ideal that he championed was already being realised, to a certain extent, by such workers." [Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 164] Proudhon simply rejected revolution, trade
unions or state-backed reforms as the means of achieving socialism and instead argued for a reformist strategy based primarily on the creation of co-operative workplaces and banks.
He linked his politics to workers self-activity and argued that "the proof" of his mutualist ideas was shown in the "current practice, revolutionary practice" of "those labour
associations . . . which have spontaneously . . . been formed in Paris and Lyon" during the 1848 revolution which show that the "organisation of credit and organisation of labour
amount to one and the same." If all workers "organise themselves along similar lines, it is obvious that, as masters of labour, constantly generating fresh capital through work,
they would soon have wrested alienated capital back again, through their organisation and competition." This would apply to "small-scale" as well as "large-scale property and large
industries". [Op. Cit. , pp. 374-5] Thus Proudhon places his ideas firmly in the actions of working people resisting wage slavery (i.e. the proletariat) and not exclusively in the
"small property owner" (i.e., artisans and peasants).

So regardless of McNally's claims, Proudhon was not fixated upon "small property". As we discuss in section 4, Proudhon's recognition of differences in the working class was
reflected in his position on property. His proposals for a libertarian society included social ownership, workers' self-management of large scale workplaces as well as artisan and
peasant production and explicitly and repeatedly argued for "the complete emancipation of the worker . . . the abolition of the wage worker." [quoted by Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 222]
Rather than being backward looking and aiming exclusively at the artisan/peasant, Proudhon's ideas looked to the present and the future by looking at both the artisan/peasant and
proletariat (i.e. to the whole of the working class in France at the time). As Daniel Gue'rin summarised:

    "Proudhon really moved with the times and realised that it is impossible to turn back the clock. He was realistic enough to understand that 'small industry is as stupid as
    petty culture" . . . With regard to large-scale modern industry requiring a large workforce, he was resolutely collectivist: 'In future, large-scale industry and wide culture
    must be the fruit of association.' 'We have no choice in the matter,' he concluded, and waxed indignant that anyone had dared to suggest that he was opposed to technical
    progress . . . Property must be abolished . . . The means of production and exchange must be controlled neither by capitalist companies nor by the State . . . they must be
    managed by associations of workers" [ Anarchism, p. 45]

The notion that anarchism is the politics of the "small property owner" is even harder to maintain when we move from Proudhon's reformist anarchism to the revolutionary anarchism
of Bakunin and Kropotkin. While there is a similar commitment to a decentralised, federal socialism "from below" rooted in social and economic self-management, the means are
different: revolution is embraced, along with labour unions and direct action. Where Proudhon differs from later anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and Goldman is that
this working class self-activity is reformist in nature, that is seeking alternatives to capitalism which can reform it away rather than alternatives that can fight and destroy it.
However, this embrace of social revolution and class struggle by anarchists like Bakunin rests on the same principle of working class self-emancipation.

Hence we find Bakunin arguing that "revolution is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses" and so socialism can be achieved "by the development and organisation,
not of the political but of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses" who must "organise and federate spontaneously, freely, from the bottom
up, by their own momentum according to their real interest, but never according to any plan laid down in advance and imposed upon the ignorant masses by some superior intellects."
Social change would be achieved only by "the complete solidarity of individuals, sections and federations in the economic struggle of the workers of all countries against their
exploiters." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings , p. 237, pp. 197-8 and p. 177] Unlike Proudhon, he saw the means for achieving the social revolution in the labour movement as
trade unions (organised from the bottom up, of course) were "the natural organisation of the masses" as "workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses" was the means by
which workers could emancipate itself "through practical action." Thus the key to working-class self-liberation was "trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance
funds" [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139 and p. 103] In short, what became known as a syndicalist position (see section 9 for a discussion of McNally's false counterpoising of anarchism
and syndicalism) as the "organisation of the trade sections and their representation by the Chambers of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society which is
to replace the old world. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255] Moreover, as we show in the next section,
like Proudhon, Bakunin argued that an anarchist society would be based on "the collective ownership of producers' associations, freely organised and federated in the communes, and
by the equally spontaneous federation of these communes." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 197] As Kropotkin summarised:

    "the chief aim of Anarchism is to awaken those constructive powers of the labouring masses . . . since the times of the International Working Men’s Association, the Anarchists
    have always advised taking an active part in those workers’ organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector, -- the State

    "Such a struggle . . . better than any other indirect means, permits the worker to obtain some temporary improvements in the present conditions of work, while it opens his eyes
    to the evil that is done by Capitalism and the State that supports it, and wakes up his thoughts concerning the possibility of organising consumption, production, and exchange
    without the intervention of the capitalist and the State." [Direct Struggle Against Capital, p. 189]

And McNally asserts that "the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society"! Only someone ignorant of anarchist
theory or with a desire to deceive could make such an assertion. Needless to say, McNally's claim that anarchism is the politics of the "small property owner" would be even harder
to justify if he mentioned Kropotkin's communist anarchism. However, like Proudhon's and Bakunin's support for collective ownership by workers associations it goes unmentioned --
for obvious reasons.

3. Does anarchism "glorify values from the past"?

McNally asserts, regardless of the facts, that anarchism "represented the anguished cry of the small property owner against the inevitable advance of capitalism. For that reason,
it glorified values from the past: individual property, the patriarchal family, racism." The reality is very different. We will take each issue in turn.

First, we should note that unlike Marx, anarchists did not think that capitalism was inevitable or an essential phase society had to go through before we could reach a free
society. Neither Proudhon nor Bakunin shared Marx's viewpoint that socialism (and the struggle for socialism) had to be postponed until capitalism had developed sufficiently so
that the "centralisation of the means of production and the socialisation [sic!] of labour reach a point at which they become incompatible with their capitalist integument."
[Capital, vol. 1, p. 929] As McNally states, socialism was once the "banner under which millions of working people resisted the horrors of the factory system and demanded a new
society of equality, justice, freedom and prosperity." Unfortunately, the Marxist tradition viewed such horrors as essential, unavoidable and inevitable and any form of working
class struggle -- such as the Luddites -- which resisted the development of capitalism was denounced. So much for Marxism being in favour of working class "self-emancipation" -- if
working class resistance to oppression and exploitation which does not fit into its scheme for "working class self-emancipation" then it is the product of ignorance or non-working
class influences. This can be seen from McNally's position on anarchism.

Thus, rather than representing "the anguished cry of the small property owner against the inevitable advance of capitalism" anarchism is rather the cry of the oppressed against
capitalism and the desire to create a free society in the here and now and not some time in the future once "the proletariat" was the majority of the working classes. To quote
German Anarchist Gustav Landauer:

    "Karl Marx and his successors thought they could make no worse accusation against the greatest of all socialists, Proudhon, than to call him a petit-bourgeois and petit-peasant
    socialist, which was neither incorrect nor insulting, since Proudhon showed splendidly to the people of his nation and his time, predominately small farmers and craftsmen, how
    they could achieve socialism immediately without waiting for the tidy process of big capitalism." [For Socialism, p. 61]

As noted in the previous section, Proudhon's theory reflected both artisan/ peasant interests and those of wage workers -- as would be expected from a socialist aiming to transform
his society to a free one. The disastrous results of Bolshevik rule in Russia should indicate the dangers of ignoring the vast bulk of a nation (i.e. the peasants) when trying to
create a revolutionary change in society. McNally confuses a desire to achieve socialism now with backward looking opposition to capitalism. Proudhon looked at the current state of
society, not backwards, as McNally suggests. Indeed, he lambasted those radicals during the 1848 who sought to repeat the glories of the Great French Revolution rather than look to
the future:

    "It is by '93 and all of its discord that we are being ruled . . . The democrats of '93, conjuring up a republic with their high school memories [of Ancient Rome], after
    devouring one another, set the revolution back by half a century . . . The democrats of 1848, building the republic on their parliamentary memories, have also set the
    revolution back by half a century . . . they are only imitators; they thought themselves statesmen because they were following the old models!

    "So what is this queer preoccupation which, in time of revolution, bedazzles the most steadfast minds, and, when their burning aspirations carry them forward into the future,
    has them constantly harking back the past? How does it come about that the People, just when it is making the break with established institutions, takes another plunge and gets
    further immersed in tradition? Society does not repeat itself: but one would have thought it was walking backwards . . . Could it not turn its gaze in the direction in which it
    is going?

    "[. . .]

    "In order to organise the future, a general rule confirmed by experience, the reformers always start out with their gaze fixed upon the past. Hence the contradiction forever
    discovered in their actions: hence also the immeasurable danger of revolutions." [Property is Theft!, p. 308]

Secondly, it is not true that Proudhon or Bakunin "glorified" individual property. Proudhon, as is well know, argued that "property is theft" and that "property is despotism." He
was well aware of the negative side effects of individual property and sought to end it: "instead of inferring . . . that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name
of general security, its entire abolition." However, just as he was against capitalism, Proudhon was also against state socialism: "Either competition, -- that is, monopoly and
what follows; or exploitation by the State, -- that is, dearness of labour and continuous impoverishment; or else, in short, a solution based upon equality, -- in other words, the
organisation of labour, which involves the negation of political economy and the end of property." [Property is Theft!, p. 87, p. 133, p. 91 and p. 202]

He was well aware that replacing private property by state property would not liberate the working class for what he termed "Community" (usually, if not accurately, translated as
"communism"), would enserf the worker to the state. Instead, Proudhon wanted to abolish property and replace it with possession. As he put it in 1840's What is Property?, while
property had to be "collective and undivided" its use could be divided by means of "possession". [Op. Cit., p. 137] Thus workers would control the means of production they used as
well as the goods they created:

    "property in product . . . does not carry with it property in the means of production; that seems to me to need no further demonstration. There is no difference between the
    soldier who possesses his arms, the mason who possesses the materials committed to his care, the fisherman who possesses the water, the hunter who possesses the fields and
    forests, and the cultivator who possesses the lands: all, if you say so, are proprietors of their products -- not one is proprietor of the means of production. The right to
    product is exclusive . . . the right to means is common". [Op. Cit., p. 112]

As we discuss in the section 4, Proudhon repeatedly noted his position and refuted those who claimed he supported individual property. He also recognised that private property was
not completely without merit as it gave its holder a measure of autonomy and protection against the state and other social forces. It was precisely this autonomy which he wished
all to share rather than under capitalism where workers "sold their arms and parted with their liberty" to the capitalist or landlord. [Op. Cit., p. 212] However, recognising this
-- and the dangers of state socialism -- hardly equates to glorification of private property.

It is true that Proudhon did oppose the forced socialisation of artisan workplaces and peasant land. He considered having control over the means of production, housing, etc. by
those who use it as a key means of maintaining freedom and independence. Thus we find him arguing in 1851 that "it is evident that if the peasants think well to associate, they
will associate". [Op. Cit., p. 584] However, the issue was different for modern industry:

    "In such cases, it is one of two things; either the worker, necessarily a piece-worker, will be simply the employee of the proprietor-capitalist-entrepreneur; or he will
    participate in the chances of loss or gain of the establishment, he will have a voice in the council, in a word, he will become an associate.

    "In the first case the worker is subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience and poverty. In the second case he resumes his dignity as a man and
    citizen, he may aspire to comfort, he forms a part of the producing organisation, of which he was before but the slave; as, in the town, he forms a part of the sovereign power,
    of which he was before but the subject." [Op. Cit., p. 583]

Thus capitalism had to be replaced with associations "due to the immorality, tyranny and theft suffered". [Op. Cit., p. 584] This aspect of his ideas is continual throughout his
political works and played a central role in his social theory. Thus to say that Proudhon "glorified" individual property distorts his position. As he argued in 1848:

    "under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership . . . We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically
    organised workers' associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and
    societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic." [Op. Cit., pp. 377-8]

As the experience of workers under Lenin indicates (see section H.3.13), collective ownership by the state does not end wage labour, exploitation and oppression and so Proudhon's
arguments in favour of socialisation and possession and against capitalist and state ownership were proven right. As the forced collectivisation of the peasantry under Stalin
shows, Proudhon's respect for artisan/peasant possessions was a very sensible and humane position to take. Unless McNally supports the forced collectivisation of peasants and
artisans, Proudhon's solution is the only position a socialist can take.

We doubt that McNally wants to socialise all "property" (including individual possessions and such like). We are sure that he, like Marx and Engels, wants to retain individual
possessions in a socialist society. Thus they stated that the "distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
property" and that "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others
by means of such appropriation." Later Marx argued that the Paris Commune "wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land and capital .
. . into mere instruments of free and associated labour." [ Selected Writings, p. 47, p. 49 and pp. 290-1] This echoes Proudhon's position that property "changed its nature" when
it "the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour". Thus support for "individual property" is not confined to
Proudhon and, as noted, he desired to turn capital over to associated labour as well and this association he considered "the annihilation of property". [Op. Cit., p. 155 and p.
148] It should also be stressed, as we note in section A.5.1, the followers of Proudhon played a key role in the Paris Commune and its attempts to create co-operatives reflected
his ideas. Moreover, initially Marx had nothing but praise for Proudhon's critique of property contained in his classic work What is Property?:

    "Proudhon makes a critical investigation -- the first resolute, ruthless, and at the same time scientific investigation -- of the basis of political economy, private property.
    This is the great scientific advance he made, an advance which revolutionises political economy and for the first time makes a real science of political economy possible.
    Proudhon's treatise Qu'est-ce que la proprie'te'? is as important for modern political economy as Sieye^s' work Qu'est-ce que le tiers e'tat? for modern politics." [ Collected
    Works, vol. 4, p. 32]

As Rocker argued, Marx changed his tune to "conceal from everyone just what he owed to Proudhon and any means to that end was admissible." [Marx and Anarchism ] This can be seen
from the comments we quote above which clearly show a Proudhonian influence in their recognition that possession replaces property in a socialist society and that associated labour
is its economic basis. However, it is still significant that Proudhon's analysis initially provoked such praise by Marx -- an analysis which McNally obviously does not understand.

Moving on from Proudhon, we discover Bakunin also opposing individual property and arguing that "the land, the instruments of work and all other capital [will] become the
collective property of society and by utilised only by the workers, in other words by the agricultural and industrial associations." [ Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 174]
With regards to peasants and artisans Bakunin also desired voluntary collectivisation. "In a free community," he argued, "collectivism can only come about through the pressure of
circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below." Rather than being a defender of "individual property" as McNally implies, Bakunin was
a clear and consistent supporter of collective property (as organised in workers' associations and communes) and supported peasant and artisan property only in the sense of being
against forced collectivisation as this would result in "propelling [the peasants] into the camp of reaction." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 200 and p. 197] Expropriation of capital
was considered a key aspect of social revolution:

    "let us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the
    workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by streets and quartiers,
    they will form the revolutionary federation of all the quartiers, the federative commune . . . All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives
    to organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution, together with propaganda, the weapon of revolution, and
    practical revolutionary solidarity with friends in all countries against enemies in all countries." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 178-9]

Given how often Bakunin stressed the need for union struggles and collective labour property, it is easy to conclude that McNally did no research into anarchism before writing
about it. So we discover him arguing that "resistance funds and trade unions" are "the only efficacious weapons" the workers have against the bourgeoisie and this needed "the
organisation of the international strength of the workers of all countries." This movement aimed for a society "based on equality" where "all capital and every instrument of
labour, including the soil, belong to the people, by right of collective property." States "must be abolished, for their only mission is to protect individual property, that is,
to protect the exploitation by some privileged minority, of the collective labour of the masses of the people" and a "just human society" must be created, one "free of political
domination and economic exploitation, founded only on collective labour which is guaranteed by collective property." He repeatedly proclaimed his support for "the great principle
of collective property" and argued that "the collective property of capital" was one of "the absolutely necessary conditions for the emancipation of labour and of the workers".
[The Basic Bakunin, p. 153, p. 196 and p. 85] The social revolution would see "the passing of all the land, capital and means of production into the hands of the international
federation of free workers' associations." Land "belongs to those who have cultivated it with their own hands -- to the rural communes" while "capital and all tools of labour
belong to the city workers -- to the workers' associations." Anarchism would be "nothing else but a free federation of workers -- agricultural workers as well as factory workers
and associations of craftsmen." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 344 and p. 410]

Clearly neither Proudhon nor Bakunin "glorified" individual property. Hence Daniel Gue'rin's summary:

    "Proudhon and Bakunin were 'collectivists,' which is to say they declared themselves without equivocation in favour of the common exploitation, not by the State but by
    associated workers of the large-scale means of production and of the public services. Proudhon has been quite wrongly presented as an exclusive enthusiast of private property
    . . . At the Bale congress [of the First International] in 1869, Bakunin . . . all[ied] himself with the statist Marxists . . . to ensure the triumph of the principle of
    collective property." ["From Proudhon to Bakunin", The Radical Papers, Dimitrios I. Roussopoulos (ed.), p. 32]

Thirdly, while it is true that Proudhon did glorify the patriarchal family, the same cannot be said of Bakunin. Unlike Proudhon, he argued that "[e]qual rights must belong to both
men and women," that women must "become independent and free to forge their own way of life" and that "[o]nly when private property and the State will have been abolished will
the authoritarian juridical family disappear." He opposed the "absolute domination of the man" in marriage, urged "the full sexual freedom of women" and argued that the cause of
women's liberation was "indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the exploited workers -- men and women." An anarchist society's organisations would be populated by people
elected "by the universal suffrage of both sexes" and so it would be based on "[e]qual political, social, and economic rights, as well as equal obligations, for women." [Bakunin on
Anarchism, pp. 396-7, p. 78 and p. 93] In short:

    "Abolition of the patriarchal family law, based exclusively upon the right to inherit property and also upon the equalisation of man and women in point of political, economic,
    and social rights." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 343]

It should be redundant to note that Bakunin's position was shared by the likes of Kropotkin, Malatesta, Berkman, Chomsky and Ward but, clearly, it is not -- and best not ponder
where such noted anarchists as Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons, Voltairine de Cleyre and Louise Michel "glorified . . . the patriarchal family" ! Andre' Le'o, a feminist libertarian and
future Communard, pointed out the obvious contradiction in Proudhon's position in 1869 which these anarchists also saw:

    "These so-called lovers of liberty, if they are unable to take part in the direction of the state, at least they will be able to have a little monarchy for their personal use,
    each in his own home . . . Order in the family without hierarchy seems impossible to them -- well then, what about in the state?" [quoted by Carolyn J. Eichner, "'Vive La
    Commune!' Feminism, Socialism, and Revolutionary Revival in the Aftermath of the 1871 Paris Commune", Journal of Women's History, vol. 15, No. 2, p. 75]

These anarchists, and many others, extended anarchist ideas to the one area of life where Proudhon excluded liberty: the family. Unsurprisingly, both during and after his lifetime,
anarchists subjected it to an immanent critique (i.e., using Proudhon's own concepts against his own position) and so while repulsive, Proudhon's anti-feminism should not be used
for a blanket rejection of all his ideas given the otherwise appealing nature of his vision of a federated self-managed society -- nor anarchism as such. So to state, as McNally
does, that "anarchism" glorifies the patriarchal family simply staggers belief. Only someone ignorant of both logic and anarchist theory could make such an assertion.

Finally, we turn to the claim that anarchism "glorified . . . racism". While it is undoubtedly true that both Proudhon and Bakunin made a few racist comments, it does not follow
that anarchism as a political theory is racist. Few would suggest that because Marx and Engels made racist comments that this makes Marxism inherently racist (see section 6 for
a few examples of racist comments by the founders of Marxism). The same with anarchism -- particularly given that both Proudhon and Bakunin made anti-racist statements in their
writings. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1851 that in an anarchist society there will "no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they
will mean only places of birth. Whatever a man's race or colour, he is really a native of the universe; he has citizen's rights everywhere." [ Property is Theft!, p. 567] Bakunin
echoed this in 1867, arguing that "all collective and individual morality rests essentially upon respect for humanity" and this meant "the recognition of human right and human
dignity in every man, of whatever race, colour, degree of intellectual development, or even morality." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 146] That these comments, and others like them, are
the ones consistent with Anarchist principles is obvious.

So a few anti-Semitic and anti-German remarks, made in passing, does not equate to people who "glorified . . . racism" nor a theory which is inherently racist. Rather, it means
someone who expressed personal bigotries which failed to live up to their stated ideals. Yet rather than admit the obvious, McNally exaggerates Proudhon's and Bakunin's flaws
while remaining silent on similar ones in Marx and Engels as well as the lack of them in the likes of Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, Goldman, and so on. Ultimately, the weakness of
McNally's position can be seen from the very large Jewish anarchist movement in both Europe and America which placed Proudhon and Bakunin in their pantheon of influences.

4. Why are McNally's comments on Proudhon a distortion of his ideas?

McNally does attempt to provide some evidence for his remarks. He turns to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "widely proclaimed 'the father of anarchism.'" As he correctly notes,
Proudhon was a "printer by vocation" and "strongly opposed the emergence of capitalism in France." However, McNally claims that Proudhon's "opposition to capitalism was largely
backward-looking in character" as he "did not look forward to a new society founded upon communal property which would utilise the greatest inventions of the industrial revolution.
Instead, Proudhon considered small, private property the basis of his utopia. His was a doctrine designed not for the emerging working class, but for the disappearing petit
bourgeoisie of craftsmen, small traders and rich peasants." Unfortunately McNally has got his facts wrong.

To be fair to McNally, he is simply repeating what Marxists have been asserting about Proudhon since Marx wrote The Poverty of Philosophy. In that work, Marx claimed to be replying
to Proudhon's System of Economic Contradictions but, in reality, the bulk of the work is inaccurate diatribe and its few valid points are swamped by selective quoting, false
attribution and the repeation of points Proudhon made but in such a way as to suggest he argued the opposite. This last method of distortion can be seen when Marx implies that
Proudhon wished to return to a pre-industrial economy based on small-scale private property:

    "Those who, like Sismondi, wish to return to the correct proportions of production, while preserving the present basis of society, are reactionary, since, to be consistent,
    they must also wish to bring back all the other conditions of industry of former times." [Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 137]

Compare this to Proudhon's position expounded with similar words in System of Economic Contradictions:

    "M. de Sismondi, like all men of patriarchal ideas, would like the division of labour, with machinery and manufactures, to be abandoned, and each family to return to the system
    of primitive indivision, -- that is, to each one by himself, each one for himself, in the most literal meaning of the words. That would be to retrograde; it is impossible."
    [Property is Theft!, p. 194]

As we will show, this was not an isolated statement: Proudhon consistently supported not only large-scale industry but also socialised ownership. Indeed, the Frenchman was critical
of those socialists (whom he rightly labelled "utopian") who replaced analysis of capitalism and its tendencies with visions of an ideal system:

    "It is important, then, that we should resume the study of economic facts and practices, discover their meaning, and formulate their philosophy. Until this is done, no
    knowledge of social progress can be acquired, no reform attempted. The error of socialism has consisted hitherto in perpetuating religious reverie by launching forward into a
    fantastic future instead of seizing the reality which is crushing it; as the wrong of the economists has been in regarding every accomplished fact as an injunction against any
    proposal of reform.

    "For my own part, such is not my conception of economic science, the true social science. Instead of offering a priori arguments as solutions of the formidable problems of
    the organisation of labour and the distribution of wealth, I shall interrogate political economy as the depository of the secret thoughts of humanity" [System of Economical
    Contradictions, p. 128]

It worthwhile noting that the System of Economic Contradictions Proudhon was discussing was not some new utopian scheme, as Marx implied, but rather capitalism: "We will reserve
this subject [the future organisation of labour] for the time when, the theory of economic contradictions being finished, we shall have found in their general equation the
programme of association, which we shall then publish in contrast with the practice and conceptions of our predecessors". This analysis was essential in order to base ideas of
social transformation on current tendencies. So rather than abstractly contrast a "utopia" to capitalism, Proudhon stressed the need to first analyse and understand the current
system and so "to unfold the system of economical contradictions is to lay the foundations of universal association." [Op. Cit., p. 311 and p. 132]

While Marx asserted that Proudhon wished "to take us back to the journeymen or, at most, to the master craftsman of the Middle Ages" there is nothing in his work to support such
claims. Unsurprisingly, then, rather than provide a quote from Proudhon confirming this aspiration Marx makes many an assertion such as that individual exchange "is consistent only
with the small-scale industry of past centuries . . . or else with large-scale industry and all its train of misery and anarchy." [Op. Cit., p. 190, p. 138] Yet this forgets that
under capitalism, workers do not own or control their work but in a mutualist society they would do both. As Proudhon argued, "the pace of mechanical progress" under capitalism has
"no other effect" than to "make the chains of serfdom heavier, render life more and more expensive, and deepen the abyss which separates the class that commands and enjoys from the
class that obeys and suffers." This was because people "work under a master" and so "[u]nder the regime of property, the surplus of labour, essentially collective, passes entirely,
like the revenue, to the proprietor". [Property is Theft!, p. 195, p. 248, p. 253] Would this "misery" happen if workers managed their own work? Of course not.

Marx ignored this, proclaiming that there is "no individual exchange without the antagonism of classes." Yet a system of worker-managed workplaces exchanging the product of their
labour with peasant farmers would not be marked by classes for these "relations are not relations between individual and individual, but between worker and capitalist, between
farmer and landlord, etc." Marx ignores the nature of Proudhon's ideas, favouring the assertion he "borrows from economists the necessity of eternal relations" and forgets that
economic relations "are historical and transitory products." [Op. Cit., p. 144, p. 159, p. 178 and p. 166] Strangely, Marx forgot to quote Proudhon arguing that the "present
form" of how labour was organised "is inadequate and transitory" and that "the radical vice of political economy, consists, in general terms, in affirming as a definitive state a
transitory condition, -- namely, the division of society into patricians and proletarians". [Op. Cit., p. 170 and p. 174]

So McNally, like Marx, distorts Proudhon's position. While many later anarchists -- the communist-anarchists -- rejected Proudhon's market socialism in favour of libertarian
communism, the notion that his "opposition to capitalism was largely backward-looking in character" and that "small, private property the basis of his utopia" is just nonsense. To
quote Proudhon from 1841: "We must apply on a large scale the principle of collective production" [ Op. Cit., p. 140] As K. Steven Vincent correctly summarises:

    "On this issue, it is necessary to emphasise that, contrary to the general image given on the secondary literature, Proudhon was not hostile to large industry. Clearly,
    he objected to many aspects of what these large enterprises had introduced into society. For example, Proudhon strenuously opposed the degrading character of . . . work
    which required an individual to repeat one minor function continuously. But he was not opposed in principle to large-scale production. What he desired was to humanise such
    production, to socialise it so that the worker would not be the mere appendage to a machine. Such a humanisation of large industries would result, according to Proudhon,
    from the introduction of strong workers' associations. These associations would enable the workers to determine jointly by election how the enterprise was to be directed and
    operated on a day-to-day basis." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 156]

So if you look at Proudhon's writings rather than what Marx and Engels claimed he wrote, it will soon be discovered that Proudhon in fact favoured collective ownership and for
workers' associations to manage the means of production. Thus we find Proudhon arguing in 1840 that "the land is indispensable to our existence, -- consequently a common thing"
and "all accumulated capital being social property" so "no one can be its exclusive proprietor". Property becomes "collective and undivided" and managers "must be chosen from the
workers by the workers themselves." [Property is Theft!, p. 105, p. 118, p. 137 and p. 119] Interestingly, Marx himself noted how the Frenchman in this work, What is Property?,
"abolishes property in order to abolish poverty. Proudhon did even more. He proved in detail how the movement of capital produces poverty". [ Collected Works, vol. 4, p. 35]

Property would be owned collectively and so access would be free -- as we discuss in section I.3.3 there would be no more bosses and wage-workers but simply associates. However,
unlike under Marxism, there would be no central planning and the associates would decide what to produce. So "the use of [workplaces], like that of the land, may be divided, but
which as property remains undivided." This "non-appropriation of the instruments of production" would be "a destruction of property." Ten years later, in 1851, he argued that
"[e]very industry, operation or enterprise which by its nature requires the employment of a large number of workers of different specialities, is destined to become a society or
company of workers." Thus "every individual employed in the association . . . has an undivided share in the property of the company" as well as "the right to fill any position" for
"all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members." This means that "the collective force, which is a product of the community, ceases to be a
source of profit to a small number of managers and speculators: it becomes the property of all the workers." Thus there would be a new form of economic organisation based on "the
co-operation of all who take part in the collective work" with "equal conditions for all members [Op. Cit., p. 153, p. 149, p. 583, pp. 585-6]

Public utilities would be under the "initiative of communes and departments" with "workers companies . . . carrying the works out." This decentralisation, this "direct, sovereign
initiative of localities, in arranging for public works that belong to them, is a consequence of the democratic principle and the free contract." Land and housing would see rental
payments being "carried over to the account of the purchase" of the resource used and once the property "has been entirely paid for, it shall revert immediately to the commune."
In the case of housing, such payments would result in "a proportional undivided share in the house [the tenant] lives in, and in all buildings erected for rental, and serving as a
habitation for citizens." The land and housing would become socialised as the property "thus paid for shall pass under the control of the communal administration" and for "repairs,
management, and upkeep of buildings, as well as for new constructions, the communes shall deal with bricklayers companies or building workers associations." In short: "Capitalist
and landlord exploitation stopped everywhere, wage labour abolished, equal and just exchange guaranteed." [Op. Cit., pp. 594-5, p. 576, p. 578, p. 576 and p. 596]

Proudhon termed this vision of a self-managed economy "an industrial democracy" or "the industrial republic" and argued that "Workers' Associations are the locus of a new principle
and model of production that must replace present-day corporations". When "in an industry, all the workers, instead of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product,
work for one another and thereby contribute to a common product from which they share the profit" then, when you "extend the principle of mutuality that unites the workers of
each group to all the Workers' Associations as a unit, and you will have created a form of civilisation that, from all points of view -- political, economic, aesthetic -- differs
completely from previous civilisations" [Op. Cit., p. 610 and p. 616] Compare this, the anarchist position, on industrial democracy with Lenin's who, in 1921 went so far as to
suggest, somewhat disingenuously given the reality of party dictatorship at the time, that "Democracy is a category proper only to the political sphere". [Collected Works, vol. 32,
p. 26]

As can be seen, rather than base his "utopia" on "small, private property" Proudhon based it on the actual state of the French economy -- one marked by both artisan and large-scale
production. The latter he desired to see transformed from the individual property of the few (capitalists) into the collective property of workers' associations and placed under
workers' self-management. The former, as it did not involve wage-labour, was non-capitalist and was compatible with a system of undivided (collective) ownership and divided use
(possession). While Proudhon's vision may be considered as (in part or in whole) undesirable, contradictory and unstable, it is not "backward-looking in character" nor based on
"small, private property". That Proudhon himself publicly rejected the assertion he stood for private ownership is of note:

    "You have me saying, and I really do not know where you could have found this, that ownership of the instruments of labour must forever stay vested in the individual and remain
    unorganised. These words are set in italics, as if you had lifted them from somewhere in my books. And then, on the back of this alleged quotation, you set about answering me
    that society, or the State that stands for it, has the right to buy back all property assets . . . But it does not follow at all from my speaking on the basis of socialism
    in order to reject the buy back of such assets as nonsensical, illegitimate and poisonous that I want to see individual ownership and non-organisation of the instruments of
    labour endure for all eternity. I have never penned nor uttered any such thing: and have argued the opposite a hundred times over. I make no distinction . . . between real
    ownership and phoney ownership . . . I deny all kinds of proprietary domain. I deny it, precisely because I believe in an order wherein the instruments of labour will cease to
    be appropriated and instead become shared; where the whole earth will be depersonalised . . ."

    "There is a more straightforward, more effective and infinitely less onerous and less risky way of transferring ownership, of achieving Liberty, Equality and Fraternity . . .

    "Capital having been divested of its power of usury, economic solidarity is gradually created, and with it, an equality of wealth.

    "Next comes the spontaneous, popular formation of groups, workshops or workers’ associations;

    "Finally, the last to be conjured and formed is the over-arching group, comprising the nation in its entirety, what you term the State because you invest it in a representative
    body outside of society, but which, to me, is no longer the State." [Property is Theft!, pp. 498-500]

Clearly McNally distorts Proudhon's ideas on the question of property. That he may have been aware of the actual facts in shown by his qualification that Proudhon's critique of
capitalism was "largely backward-looking in character." The utility of which qualification is clear -- it allows him to ignore the substantial evidence against his assertion by
muttering that he never said that Proudhon was always "backward-looking"...

McNally goes too far when he asserts that Proudhon "so feared the organised power of the developing working class that he went so far as to oppose trade unions and support police
strike-breaking." There is, of course, a deep irony in McNally attacking Proudhon on this matter given that the Bolshevik regime he supports and considers as a "workers' state"
repeatedly used not only its political police (the infamous Cheka) but also the Red Army to break strikes (see section H.6.3). This was done to secure Bolshevik power over the
working class (see section 8).

It must also be stressed that while Proudhon did oppose trade unions (as we noted in section 2 he argued the working class would be better served using other means to liberate
itself) it was not the case he supported police strike-breaking. As the editor of a collection of Marx's works had to admit that "[t]o give Proudhon his due, he was not so much
justifying the actions of the French authorities as exposing the ‘contradictions' he saw as an inevitable evil of the present social order" [quoted by Iain McKay, "Introduction",
Property is Theft!, p. 65] As Proudhon himself put it:

    "workers' strikes are ILLEGAL. And it is not only the penal code which says this, but the economic system, the necessity of the established order. As long as labour is not
    sovereign, it must be a slave; society is possible only on this condition. That each worker individually should have the free disposition of his person and his arms may be
    tolerated; but that the workers should undertake, by combinations, to do violence to monopoly society cannot permit. Authority, in shooting down the miners, found itself in the
    position of Brutus placed between his paternal love and his consular duties: he had to sacrifice either his children or the republic. The alternative was horrible, I admit;
    but such is the spirit and letter of the social compact, such is the tenor of the charter . . . the police function, instituted for the defence of the proletariat, is directed
    entirely against the proletariat." [Property is Theft!, pp. 221-2]

The key words here are "[a]s long as labour is not sovereign" and, unsurprisingly, when Marx quoted this passage in Poverty of Philosophy he omitted it, so changing Proudhon's
meaning completely. So while Proudhon opposed trade unions in favour of other forms of working class self-organisation (co-operatives) it does not follow that he supported the
breaking of strikes when he reported when it happened. Rather he was noting that such things were inevitable under capitalism and that this system had to be replaced by one based
on workers' self-management of production.

It is significant that the French syndicalists whom McNally is so keen to praise and differentiate from "classical anarchists" considered Proudhon (like Bakunin) one of their
influences. Similarly, the French trade unionists who joined with their British counterparts to create the International Working Men's Association were followers of the French
anarchist. Both groups of trade unionists saw the state repress their strikes so this would be a strange paradox indeed if McNally's account of Proudhon's position on police
strike-breaking were correct. As it is not, there is no paradox.

McNally correctly states that Proudhon "oppose[d] trade unions" but rather than it being because he "feared the organised power of the developing working class" it was for the
opposite reason: "As things are at present, which do you think will win [in a strike]? . . . [the bosses as] the match is clearly unequal". At best strikes would "lead to a general
price increase". [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 182 and p. 181] Worse, as well as distorting Proudhon's position McNally fails to mention that Proudhon opposition
to trade unions and strikes as counter-productive was not shared by subsequent anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, and so on (see section 9). Why should
Proudhon (the odd man out in anarchist theory with regards to this issue) be taken as defining that theory? Such an argument is simply dishonest and presents a false picture of the
facts.

Next McNally states that Proudhon "violently opposed democracy" and presents a series of non-referenced quotes to prove his case. Such a technique is useful for McNally as it
allows him quote Proudhon without regard to when and where Proudhon made these comments and so their context. It also makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the reader to
discover both. This is a deeply problematic technique, particularly given the seriousness of the charges being made. However, the reasons why he pursued this approach become
understandable when the statements are tracked down as it becomes clear that McNally is quoting Proudhon completely out of context and so twisting his words into the opposite of
what he meant.

He suggests that Proudhon's "notes for an ideal society involved the suppression of elections, of a free press, and of public meetings of more than 20 people." The word "notes"
gives the game way, as he is not referring to any work produced in Proudhon's lifetime but rather his notebooks which were published a hundred years after his death, in the 1960s,
and unknown until then. Private notebooks are hardly the best source for determining a person's ideas as they are the means by which a thinker explores ideas, some of which he may
later conclude are deeply flawed. Moreover, as we note in section 6, neither Proudhon nor Bakunin were not anarchists throughout their lives nor consistently libertarian when they
were. Nor was anarchism born complete and ready made in 1840 when Proudhon proclaimed himself an anarchist in What is Property?. He developed his libertarian ideas over time and,
unsurprisingly, we would discover passages in his published works at odds with his subsequent, better developed, ideas. This applies even more to his private notebooks in which we
would expect ideas to be sketched which he later rejected -- perhaps sketching ideas he disagreed with precisely to clarify his thoughts.

While difficult to be completely sure, it seems likely that McNally is selectively referring Proudhon's Notebooks from 1845 when he was clarifying his ideas on the idea of
universal association. As one historian notes, Proudhon did envision some kind of national council at this time and the passages on how it would be selected "are not consistent.
In some sections he suggested that the leaders of the association were to be chosen by the members, presumably by election . . . In yet other passages, Proudhon rather immodestly
pictured himself in the director's role. One must be extremely cautious not to draw too many implications from these infrequent references to the council and its method of
selection. Proudhon did not . . . have any designs for a small dictatorial elite" as this would "fly in the face of his sincere concern for individual liberty". So it is to his
published works we must turn to see how the conclusions of these private notes and speculations. Interestingly, in a book published in 1843 Proudhon "referred to the important role
that government was to perform" but in the introduction to a later edition he indicated that "he had changed his mind on this issue on the role of government" and "he insisted that
reform should not -- could not -- come 'from above'; rather it could only 'from below, from the spontaneity of the masses, and not from the initiative of the government' . . . this
change had already occurred by 1846" when he was "vehemently attacking other socialists such as Blanc for trumpeting reform initiated 'from above'". [Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 146 and
pp. 143-4]

The same applies to when McNally suggested that Proudhon "looked forward to a 'general inquisition' and the condemnation of 'several million people' to forced labour". With no
means to see whether this is selective quoting or not, McNally disarms his readers. However, we must note a certain irony here as he does not, of course, mention that Marx and
Engels advocated "industrial armies, especially for agriculture" to ensure the "[e]qual liability of all to labour" in the Communist Manifesto. [Selected Writings, p. 53] Nor does
McNally mention the Bolshevik's introduction of the "militarisation of labour" in 1919 and 1920 with Trotsky its leading advocate. The "very principle of compulsory labour service
is for the Communist quite unquestionable . . . The only solution of economic difficulties from the point of view of both principle and of practice is to treat the population
of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . . and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and utilisation." The
"introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application . . . of the methods of militarisation of labour". This is the "State compulsion without which the
replacement of capitalist economy by the Socialist will for ever remain an empty sound." The "Labour State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place his work
is necessary" and had "the right to lay its hand upon the worker who refuses to execute his labour duty". This "presents the inevitable method of organisation and disciplining of
labour-power during the period of transition from capitalism to Socialism." [Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, p. 135, p. 137, p. 141, p. 142 and p. 143] As can be seen Trotsky did
not, as McNally would wish to suggest, think this was a result of the Civil War but rather a matter of principle.

McNally also fails to note that in December 1917 the Bolshevik regime created the Cheka, a political police force, to repress opposition to it from both the left and right as
well as from reactionary forces and workers . At its worse, it even utilised torture and the shooting of unarmed prisoners. However, its main task was repression of opposition
organisations -- including other socialists (the anarchists were its first victims in early 1918) -- and breaking strikes and other forms of labour protest in association with the
Red Army.

If Proudhon's one-off, never repeated, scribbles in a private notebook mean anarchism is "elitist and authoritarian to the core" and "hostile to ideas of mass democracy and
workers' power" what does it mean for Bolshevism which actually created a regime based on party dictatorship, political police and the militarisation of labour which its leading
thinkers defended and justified at length in books and articles written to influence the international workers' movement? McNally, of course, does not mention these awkward facts
so does not raise, never mind answer, the question.

However, reading the context of quotes McNally provides which can be tracked down, it is difficult to take his summary seriously. We turn to this now and will show that his readers
would be justified in questioning his claims on Proudhon. Simply put, once the context of the quotes he provides is understood then it becomes clear McNally is quoting selectively
in order to attribute ideas to Proudhon he did not, in fact, hold. The dishonesty is shocking.

This can be seen when McNally presents another unattributed quote: "The masses, he wrote are 'only savages . . . whom it is our duty to civilise, and without making them our
sovereign.'" Let us provide both the source and the context McNally is keen to avoid. First, the quote is from a letter written by Proudhon on the 11th of December 1852 and it
is quoted by J. Hampden Jackson who also helpfully presents the context which McNally strips, namely a few days after the plebiscite which saw an overwhelming majority of French
men vote to end the Second Republic, create the Second Empire and convert the President into an Emperor. This was exactly one year on from the President's military coup which saw
him impose a new constitution and extend his tenure by ten years, an act again endorsed by a vast majority in a plebiscite. As Hampden notes: "The people of France had spoken. It
remained for Proudhon to point the moral". [ Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism, p. 103]

This is the context for this quote -- a cry of despair at a people which so willingly voted to destroy a republic and their own freedom. These two plebiscites in favour of
Louis-Napoleon's coup and autocratic rule resulted in "Proudhon's faith in the people" falling "to its lowest level" and "no epithet was too severe for the classes in whom he had
seen the great hope of humanity." [George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 184] This becomes obvious when you read the full context of the words McNally quotes:

    "You still worship the people . . . you should absolutely demolish this false religion. It is necessary to serve freedom and morals for themselves . . . without scorning the
    people, which is only uncivilised [sauvage] and that we have to civilise, do not make it your sovereign. I saw, on December 7th, 1851, when paving stones of the boulevard
    were still red with blood, these honest people rush to small theatres, content, merry, without regret nor remorse. That once I had surprised it, for five years, in red-handed
    indifference, immorality, imperialist plot, ingratitude for its initiators! Ah! admittedly, it did not mislead me; but cowardice, even when predicted, is always hideous to see.
    I will strike these people, I warn you, until I made them embarrassed of the alleged dogma of its sovereignty; because it is not enough for us to re-examine the incompetents of
    '48, we must re-examine their idol . . ." [Correspondance de P-J Proudhon, vol. V, p. 111]

Is McNally really suggesting that Proudhon's position was incorrect and that he should have proclaimed popular support of the military coup and its repression of those defending
the Republic as an example of civilised behaviour and the people's sovereignty? As Proudhon lamented, "the truth" was that "the people have the government which it prefers, and
the bourgeoisie the government that it deserves" and "Napoleon III is the legitimate, authentic expression of the middle-class and proletarian masses. If it is not precisely the
product of the national will, it is undoubtedly that of the national permission." [Op. Cit., p. 110] McNally for all his talk of democracy does not tackle -- does not even raise!
-- the question of what happens if the majority make authoritarian and repressive decisions, as it did in December 1851 and 1852. If, as the Republicans of Proudhon's time argued,
the voice of the people is the voice of God did that make Louis-Napoleon's Presidency, coup and then Empire all legitimate? Proudhon argued no and, moreover, placed the underlying
principle of democracy -- freedom -- above its expression within the (bourgeois) state. His writings explored how to secure mass participation in social life while minimising the
possibility of tyranny. Thus the "federative system puts a stop to the agitation of the masses, to all the ambitions and incitements of demagogy" [Property is Theft!, p. 708]

By stripping away the context, McNally turns his lament for the destruction of political freedom into a demand for it. The dishonesty is striking. It also raises some problems for
McNally's stated political position of being in favour of "democracy" -- if anarchists are to be denounced because they "reject any decision-making process in which the majority of
people democratically determine the policies they will support" then McNally is in a bind. The French people democratically determined to create an Empire and destroy what was left
of their Republic. Presumably it would be "elitism" for him, like Proudhon, to denounce the decision and despair at those who made it? As we discuss in section 7, the anarchist
position on democracy is driven precisely by the obvious fact that majorities can be wrong and oppressive. This does not imply "elitism", quite the reverse.

We should also note that Marx dismissed the peasants as "a class of barbarians standing half outside of society" [Capital, vol. 3, p. 949] "In countries like France" the peasants
"constitute far more than half of the population" but, he argued, they "cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as
their master, as an authority over them, as an unlimited governmental power". Thus "the Bonaparte who dispersed [the National Assembly in 1851] is the chosen of peasantry." [The
Marx-Engels Reader, p. 493, p. 608 and pp. 607-8] Marx does not ponder the implications of these comments nor what they mean for democracy and the so-called "dictatorship of the
proletariat".

The second quote McNally provides as evidence for his case is "All this democracy disgusts me". Again, no reference is provided for obvious reasons for when it is tracked down it
becomes clear that McNally is again quoting the Frenchman completely out-of-context in order to attribute to him ideas he did not hold, indeed was arguing against. This sentence
comes from a private letter written in 1861 bemoaning how others on the left were attacking him as "a false democrat, a false friend of progress, a false republican" due to his
critical position on Polish independence. Unlike most of the rest of the left (including Bakunin, it should be noted), Proudhon opposed the creation of a Polish state as it would
be run by the "nobility [nobiliarie], [and so] catholic, aristocratic, [and] divided into castes". In other words, not a democracy. He then proclaims: "All this democracy disgusts
me". [Correspondance de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, vol. XI, p. 196-7] Once this context is provided, it becomes clear that using his justly famous talent for irony against those on
the left who violate their own stated democratic principles by supporting the creation of a feudal regime -- if this is democracy, Proudhon was saying, then it disgusts him ("All
this [so-called] democracy disgusts me"). By quoting out-of-context McNally turns a letter by Proudhon in which he wished the left would be consistently in favour of democracy into
an anti-democratic rant. His dishonesty is clear.

This, it must be noted, is also relevant to McNally's politics. While proclaiming that Leninism is the only consistently democratic socialist theory and that to "talk of a workers'
state is necessarily to talk of workers' power and workers' democracy", he makes an exception to the party dictatorship ruled by Lenin and Trotsky from 1918 to 1923. Then it
becomes the case that socialism no longer "depends upon the existence of democratic organisation that can control society from below" nor "presupposes that workers are running the
state." If, in 1861, Proudhon expressed his frustration at those on the left who made exceptions to democracy for illogical reasons (the creation of a feudal Poland) what would
have been his views of socialists who made exceptions for the Bolshevik regime?

Even without the context for the quotes McNally presents, anyone with a basic grasp of anarchist ideas would know that he fails to quote the many statements Proudhon made in favour
of democracy. Why should the apparently anti-democratic quotes represent anarchism and not the pro-democratic ones? Which ones are more in line with anarchist theory and practice?
Surely the pro-democratic ones. Hence we find Proudhon arguing that "[i]n democratising us, revolution has launched us on the path of industrial democracy" and that his People's
Bank "embodies the financial and economic aspects of modern democracy, that is, the sovereignty of the People, and of the republican motto, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." We have
already mentioned Proudhon's support for workers' self-management of production and his People's Bank was also democratic in nature: "A committee of thirty representatives shall
be set up to see to the management of the Bank . . . They will be chosen by the General Meeting . . . [which] shall consist of not more than one thousand nominees of the general
body of associates and subscribers . . . elected according to industrial categories and in proportion to the number of subscribers and representatives there are in each category."
[Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 63, p. 75 and p. 79] Thus, instead of bourgeois democracy Proudhon proposes industrial and communal democracy:

    "every industry needs . . . leaders, instructors, superintendents, etc. . . . they must be chosen from the workers by the workers themselves, and must fulfil the conditions of
    eligibility. It is the same with all public functions, whether of administration or instruction." [Property is Theft!, p. 118]

    "In order that association may be real, he who participates in it must do so . . . as an active factor; he must have a deliberative voice in the council . . . everything
    regarding him, in short, should be regulated in accordance with equality. But these conditions are precisely those of the organisation of labour." [Op. Cit., p. 2156]

    "In the republic, everyone reigns and governs . . . Representatives are plenipotentiaries with the imperative mandate and are recallable at will . . . Here is the republic!
    Here is the People's sovereignty! [Op. Cit., p. 279]

    "At present we are a quasi-democratic Republic: all the citizens are permitted, every third or fourth year, to elect, first, the Legislative Power, second, the Executive Power.
    The duration of this participation in the Government for the popular collectivity is brief; forty-eight hours at the most for each election. For this reason the correlative of
    the Government remains nearly the same as before, almost the whole Country. The President and the Representatives, once elected, are the masters; all the rest obey. They are
    subjects, to be governed . . ." [Op. Cit., p. 573]

    "In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. -- No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each commune or corporation [i.e.,
    self-managed industry], makes its own laws." [Op. Cit., p. 591]

    "Unless democracy is a fraud, and the sovereignty of the People a joke, it must be admitted that each citizen in the sphere of his industry, each municipal, district or
    provincial council within its own territory, is the only natural and legitimate representative of the Sovereign, and that therefore each locality should act directly and by
    itself in administering the interests which it includes, and should exercise full sovereignty in relation to them." [Op. Cit., p. 595]

    "Workers' Associations are the locus of a new principle and model of production that must replace present-day corporations . . . The principle that prevailed there, in place of
    that of employers and employees . . . is participation, that is, the MUTUALITY of services supplementing the force of division and the force of collectivity.

    "There is mutuality, in fact, when in an industry, all the workers, instead of working for an owner who pays them and keeps their product, work for one another . . . extend the
    principle of mutuality that unites the workers of each group to all the Workers' Associations as a unit, and you will have created a form of civilisation that, from all points
    of view -- political, economic, aesthetic -- differs completely from previous civilisations . . ." [Op. Cit., p. 616]

    "groups that comprise the confederation. . . would be . . . self-governing, self-judging and self-administering in complete sovereignty. . . universal suffrage form its basis"
    [Op. Cit., p. 716]

    "under the democratic constitution, insofar we can judge from its most salient ideas and most authentic aspirations, the political and the economic are one and the same, a sole
    and single system based upon a single principle, mutuality . . . no longer do we have the abstraction of people's sovereignty as in the '93 [French] Constitution and the others
    that followed it, and in Rousseau's Social Contract. Instead it becomes an effective sovereignty of the labouring masses . . . the labouring masses are actually, positively and
    effectively sovereign: how could they not be when the economic organism -- labour, capital, property and assets -- belongs to them entirely" [Op. Cit., pp. 760-1]

    "If political right is inherent in man and citizen, consequently if suffrage ought to be direct, the same right is inherent as well, so much the more so, for each corporation
    [i.e. self-managed industry], for each commune or city, and the suffrage in each of these groups, ought to be equally direct." [quoted by Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 219]

So, clearly, McNally is hardly presenting a fair summary of either Proudhon's private notebooks, letters or his published works. This can be seen from his justly famous manifesto
issued during the 1848 revolution which presents a better notion of his "ideal society". It advocated "democratically organised workers' associations" along with "universal
suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the imperative mandate" otherwise "the people, in electing representatives, does not appoint
mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty!" This "is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy". He also demanded: "Freedom of association", "Freedom of assembly" and
"Freedom of the press". [Property is Theft!, p. 377 and p. 379]

Do all these quotes suggest a man who "violently opposed democracy"? Of course not. Proudhon opposed certain types of democracy (centralised, hierarchical, top-down, statist
democracy) and was in favour of another kind (decentralised, federal, bottom-up, libertarian democracy). So when looking at quotes by Proudhon ripped from their context it is
important to ask whether he is attacking the centralised, hierarchical democracy of the state or the decentralised, participatory democracy of federated self-managed workplaces
and communes? By taking of "democracy" in the abstract and not indicating that there are different forms of it (reflecting different class interests), McNally is confusing the
issue. He fails to inform his readers that while Proudhon repeatedly attacked the former he advocated the latter. To use terms McNally should be familiar with, Proudhon attacked
bourgeois democracy in favour of working-class democracy rooted in mandates, recall, decentralisation and federalism -- what would be better termed "self-management" but which
Proudhon came to call "labour democracy" which would be "the IDEA of the new Democracy." In the state, "universal suffrage is the strangulation of the public conscience, the
suicide of popular sovereignty, the apostasy of the Revolution" and to "make the vote for all intelligent, moral, democratic, it is necessary. . . to make the citizens vote by
categories of functions, in accordance with the principle of the collective force". This federative democracy would be applied in the community (communes) and industry ("the
agricultural-industrial federation"), indeed all areas including the military where it was necessary to "abolish military conscription, organise a citizens' army" based on "the
right of the citizens to appoint the hierarchy of their military chiefs, the simple soldiers and national guards appointing the lower ranks of officers, the officers appointing
their superiors." [Op. Cit., pp. 724-5, pp. 676-7, p. 711, p. 407 and p. 443]

As can be seen, Proudhon's position on democracy is not quite what McNally suggests. Under a centralised social system it simply meant the people "is confined to choosing its
bosses and its charlatans every three or four years." The issue for Proudhon was to create a system which allowed the people to govern itself and not hand power over to a few
leaders -- particularly when the majority often pass that power to demagogues like Louis-Napoleon. It was the case "that the only way to organise democratic government is to
abolish government" for the State "is the external constitution of the social power. . . the people does not govern itself . . . We affirm . . . that the people, that society,
that the mass, can and ought to govern itself by itself . . . We deny government and the State, because we affirm that which the founders of States have never believed in, the
personality and autonomy of the masses." [Op. Cit., p. 437, p. 485 and pp. 482-483]

Thus McNally presents a distorted picture of Proudhon's ideas and thus leads the reader to conclusions about anarchism violently at odds with its real nature. It is somewhat ironic
that McNally attacks Proudhon for being anti-democratic. After all, as we indicate in section 8 below, the Leninist tradition in which he places himself has a distinct contempt for
democracy and, in practice, destroyed it in favour of party dictatorship.

There is an addition irony. McNally praises the Paris Commune and states that "to secure their rule, the Parisian workers took a series of popular democratic measures. They
suppressed the standing army and replaced it with a popular militia; they established the right of the people to recall and replace their elected representatives" and "universal
male suffrage". He does not mention that, as can be seen, all these were advocated by Proudhon nor that his followers played a key role in the 1871 revolt. Clearly it is simply not
the case that Marx's "work signalled an entirely new direction in socialist thought and socialist politics" if he "insisted" that "the abolition of the standing army", "universal
suffrage" and "the right to recall representatives" were "all essential elements of any workers' state." Proudhon advocated all these over a decade before his followers made Marx
belatedly see their benefit in 1871. Where Proudhon differed from Marx was his awareness that a federated society organised from the bottom-up was no state and to confuse the two
opened the door to centralisation and the creation of a new class system -- as happened in Russia under the Bolsheviks.

After distorting Proudhon's ideas on democracy and his desired society, McNally moves onto more secure ground, namely his sexism. He is correct to note that Proudhon "denounced
women's liberation" and so right to quote Lichtheim that Proudhon had "a firmly patriarchal view of family life" and "regarded women as inferior beings." However, while correct to
attack the Frenchman for this, it is incorrect to extend this to a rejection of anarchism as such -- particularly given the obvious contradiction of this position with the rest of
his ideas. As noted in section 3, other anarchists rejected these reactionary ideas and consistently applied libertarian principles to within the family.

Lastly, McNally states that Proudhon "was a rabid racist reserving his greatest hatred for Jews, whose 'extermination' he advocated. He opposed emancipation for the American blacks
and backed the cause of the southern slave owners during the American Civil War." To support his claims, he quotes George Lichtheim (whom he considers as having "written quite
accurately") stating that Proudhon expressed "tolerance for slavery (he publicly sided with the South during the American civil war)" and "he believed in inherent inequalities
among the races". It will come as no surprise that this is either completely false or not entirely true.

Let us take the question of Proudhon's anti-Semitism. It is true that Proudhon made the occasional anti-Semitic remark in his writings but as Robert Graham correctly summarises
"anti-semitism formed no part of Proudhon's revolutionary programme." ["Introduction", General Idea of the Revolution, p. xxxvi] In terms of the claim that he advocated the
"extermination" of the Jews what McNally does not mention is that this comes from a single entry in his private Notebooks and was unknown until a hundred years after his death. The
intellectual dishonesty of this should be clear and, unsurprisingly, he does not prove that this was anything more than a passing rant nor that Proudhon held this view before 1847
or after, either publicly or privately. In terms of the former, it is the case that Proudhon's anti-Semitism is limited to a few passing Jewish stereotypes (which, sadly, reflected
French culture at the time) in a few of his minor articles and books. A reader consulting his most important works would not come across a single anti-Semitic remark and many
proclamations in favour of racial equality.

This does not mean that this private remark should not be condemned -- it should -- but it does not follow that we reject everything wrote before or after it. That this was a
one-off rant suggests that when it was written something caused Proudhon's (culturally reflective, but still inexcusable) anti-Semitic feelings to intensify so resulting in this
rant. Significantly, Proudhon's beloved mother died that very month (December 1847) which suggests that it reflected an outlet for the deep despair he must have been feeling. Given
that he never expressed this view before 1847 nor afterwards it should be considered as a quickly forgotten aberration produced by the pressures of a family crisis rather than
something indicative of his politics.

So quoting a single rant from his private notebook presents a false impression of Proudhon's ideas on race. To imply that a never repeated comment made in a private notebook and
completely unknown until over a century later was part of his public work or a central aspect of Proudhon's ideas presents a completely false impression of both them and their
influence -- particularly given his discussion of race in The Federative Principle, to which we now turn.

McNally and Lichtheim proclaim that Proudhon "publicly" expressed "tolerance for slavery", "opposed emancipation for the American blacks and backed the cause of the southern slave
owners" because he was a racist. This is not the case, as can be seen from the extended discussion on slavery in the only major work written during the American Civil War, The
Federative Principle. First, though, it must be stressed that the American Civil War had very little to do with slavery and far more to do with conflicts within the US ruling
class. As Howard Zinn noted, the war "was not over slavery as a moral institution . . . It was not a clash of peoples . . . but of elites. The northern elite wanted economic
expansion -- free land, free labour, a free [national] market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the United States. The slave interests opposed all that" [A
People's History of the United States, pp. 188-9] Slavery was never the driver for the war, regardless of how this has retroactively become the main cause (because this fits into
the self-image and rhetoric of America far better than the grim reality). Indeed, abolition of slavery was raised as a war aim only in 1862 as a way of boosting the North's chances
of winning.

Proudhon recognised this obvious fact, arguing consistently applying the federal principle would mean "progressively raising the Black peoples' condition to the level of the
Whites." However, the North "cares no more than the South about a true emancipation, which renders the difficulty insoluble even by war and threatens to destroy the confederation."
Rather than express "tolerance" for slavery he wrote "the enslaving of one part of the nation is the very negation of the federative principle." [Property is Theft!, pp. 698-9f]
Both sides were "fighting only over the type of servitude" and so both must "be declared equally guilty blasphemers and betrayers of the federative principle and banned from all
nations." The union could only be saved if the North "grants the blacks their civil rights" and pursues radical economic reform by "providing possessions for the wage-workers
and organising, alongside political guarantees, a system of economic guarantees." This last was key, for the slaves had "acquired the right of use and habitation on American
soil." Justice demanded that both the freed slaves and wage workers must be given means of production (land, tools, workplaces) and other economic guarantees as "the conversion of
black slaves to the proletariat" would mean that "black servitude will only change its form" rather than ended. Both "slavery and the proletariat are incompatible with republican
values." [quoted by Iain McKay, "Neither Washington nor Richmond: Proudhon on Racism & the Civil War", Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, no. 60, pp. 25-6]

Proudhon stressed "with regard to black workers, that physiologists and ethnographers recognise them as part of the same species as whites; that religion declares them, along
with the whites, the children of God and the church, redeemed by the blood of the same Christ and therefore spiritual brothers; that psychology sees no difference between the
constitution of the Negro conscience and that of the white, no more than between the comprehension of one and the other." This meant that blacks should be "as free as the whites
by nature and human dignity." Therefore "the principle of equality before the law must have as corollaries: 1) the principle of equality of races, 2) the principle of equal
conditions and 3) the principle of increasingly similar, although never completely equal, fortunes." This meant that "[i]n a federal republic, the proletariat and slavery both seem
unacceptable; the tendency must be to abolish them both". So, Proudhon argued, "grant equal political rights to both the emancipated blacks and those kept in servitude until now"
and proclaim them "fellow citizens and equals". "The federative principle," he summarised, "here appears closely related to that of the social equality of races and the equilibrium
of fortunes. The political problem, the economic problem and the problem of races are one and the same problem, and the same theory and jurisprudence can resolve that problem."
[quoted by McKay, Op. Cit., p. 25]

As can be seen, McNally and Lichtheim completely distort Proudhon's actual position. A more accurate account of this is given by academic Ralph Nelson:

    "But it would be naive to think that it is just the peculiar institution of slavery that Proudhon detests. He finds in the North also the principle of inequality and class
    distinction. If he is critical of both sides in the war, it is because the federative principle is incompatible with inequality, whether the agrarian variety of master and
    slave or the modern version of capital and labour . . .

    "Proudhon didn't really believe that the Union side would emancipate the Negro, but would fix on deportation as the solution to the problem. The union could be saved only
    by the liberation of the Negroes, granting them full citizenship, and by a determination to stop the growth of the proletariat. For what is gained for the former slaves, if
    emancipation means that they will become members of the proletariat? He notes that the situation in Russia after the emancipation of the serfs (1861) is analogous. Liberated
    serfs without land would be helpless. Economic guarantees must be developed alongside political ones. The corollaries of equality before the law are racial equality, equality
    of condition, and an approach toward equality of fortunes." ["The Federal Idea in French Political Thought", Publius, vol. 5, No. 3, p. 41]

There is an obvious flaw in his position, namely that "Proudhon suggests that nothing will have been gained if the blacks were freed only to become wage earners, as if the
condition of the wage-earner were not closer to the realisation of personal autonomy than the condition of a well-treated slave." [Nelson, Op. Cit., p. 43] Yet his fears should not
be ignored as the Southern states "enacted 'black codes' which made the freed slaves like serfs" after the end of the Civil War. [Zinn, Op. Cit., p. 199] As one Black newspaper put
it: "The slaves were made serfs and chained to the soil . . . Such was the boasted freedom acquired by the coloured man at the hands of the Yankees." [quoted by Zinn, Op. Cit., pp.
196-7] However, these reservations about Proudhon's arguments -- which did contain relevant concerns -- do not make McNally's comments any more accurate. That he repeats someone
else's mistakes do not matter as he should have taken the time to verify the claims by consulting Proudhon's own works -- particularly given the serious nature of the assertions
being made.

As can be seen, the notion that Proudhon was "a rabid racist" cannot be supported. While he undoubted made the occasion racist remark (usually anti-Jewish), this was not reflected
in his political ideas. Similarly, if, as Lichtheim suggests "dislike of Germans, Italians, Poles" is considered important, then why are similar dislikes of other nationalities by
Marx and Engels not worthy of note? Neither was free from anti-Semitic and other racist comments but anarchists consider these as relatively unimportant as they are understandable
given the culture they lived in. In other words, Proudhon, Marx and Engels were people of their times and so it is unsurprising that certain of their opinions shock and disgust us.
The question is, are these views at the core of their politics or do they reflect personal bigotries in contradiction with them? In all three cases, the answer is obvious and so
such attacks on Proudhon fail to convince – particularly if they are generalised to all anarchists, as if Proudhon's opposition to strikes or his sexism were remotely applicable to
the likes of Bakunin, Kropotkin or Goldman!

Also, it is somewhat ironic that McNally mentions Proudhon's alleged "support" for the South as the Leninist tradition he places his own politics is renown for supporting various
dictatorships during wars. For example, during the Vietnam war the various Leninist groups called for victory to North Vietnam, a Stalinist dictatorship while during both Gulf Wars
they called for victory to Iraq, another dictatorship. In other words, they "tolerated" and "supported" anti-working class regimes, dictatorships and repression of democracy. They
stress that they do not politically support these regimes, rather they wish these states to win in order to defeat the greater evil of imperialism. In practice, of course, such a
division is hard to defend -- for a state to win a war it must repress its own working class and so, in calling for a victory for a dictatorship, they must support the repression
and actions that state requires to win the war (as an explosion of resistance, class struggle and revolt in the "lesser imperialist power" will undermine its war machine and so
lead to its defeat). The notion that such calls do not mean support for the regime is false and so McNally's comments against Proudhon as well as being inaccurate also smack of
hypocrisy -- his political tradition has sided with repressive dictatorships during wars in the name of wider political aims and theory. In contrast, anarchists have consistently
raised the idea of "No war but the class war" in such conflicts (see section A.3.4). Proudhon's position of refusal to side with either the North or the South during the American
Civil War is related to the revolutionary anarchist position.

To conclude, with the exception of his sexism McNally's account of Proudhon's ideas is either completely false (on small-scale property, democracy, racial equality) or, at best,
half-truths turned into full-lies (his anti-Semitism and position of strikes). The scale of the distortion is simply staggering, suggesting he never consulted a single book by
Proudhon. In terms of Proudhon's sexism and anti-Semitism, dismissing a theory based on the personal failings of those who advocate it only convinces the superficial. Proudhon
rejected many of the assumptions of his times, yet he did not rise above all of them. As George Lichtheim suggests (in a passage McNally could not bring himself to quote), " [i]n
all these respects Proudhon simply reflected the milieu from which he had sprung. His mental crudities were commonplace and not peculiar to him. Half peasant, half townsman, he
was the embodiment of the average French workingman of his day". [The Origins of Socialism, p. 87] Subsequent anarchists (including Bakunin) overcame the limitations of Proudhon
the man by using Proudhon the theorist. McNally, by personalising the matter, seeks to deny the significant contributions Proudhon made to socialism (as can be seen by the Paris
Commune). If he were more confident in his own political tradition he would not have to do this as Leninism should be able to convince by presenting an accurate account of the
ideas of others and showing their weaknesses. That McNally did not do this for Proudhon shows that, for all his flaws, his argument that socialism needs to be decentralised,
federal and self-managed still rings true. The failure of the Bolshevik regime confirms this.

5. Why are McNally's comments on Bakunin a distortion of his ideas?

McNally then moves on to Bakunin whom he states "shared most of Proudhon's views." The truth is somewhat different. Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin supported trade unions and strikes,
equality for women and revolution as well as being far more explicit in support for the collectivisation of property.

This can be seen from Bakunin's last book in which he argued that the International Working Men's Association "has shown the proletariat the objective it must achieve and at the
same time has indicated to it the ways and means of organising a popular force", namely "a voluntary alliance of agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, provinces
and nations" organised "from below upwards". Socialism would be created "only through concerted action by the proletariat of all countries, whose organisation first on an economic
basis is precisely the object of the International", by means of "factory, artisan, and agrarian sections". A "federal organisation, from below upwards, of workers' associations,
groups, communes, districts, and, ultimately, regions and nations" was needed "for real as opposed to fictitious freedom". This "popular federation" would be "based on emancipated
labour and collective property" as the "mode of future production" would be "producers' cooperatives" and "all forms of land and capital must become collective property". He also
"demand[ed], along with liberty, the equality of rights and obligations for men and women." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 32, p. 33, p. 49, p. 51, p. 13, p. 22, p. 201 and p. 219]

So Bakunin disagreed with Proudhon on many subjects. He did share Proudhon's support for industrial self-management, self-organisation in workers' associations, his hatred of
capitalism and his vision of a decentralised, libertarian, federal, "from below" socialist society. It is true that, as McNally notes, "Bakunin shared [Proudhon's] anti-semitism"
but he fails to mention Marx and Engels' many racist remarks against Slavs and other peoples. Also it is not true that Bakunin "was a Great Russian chauvinist convinced that the
Russians were ordained to lead humanity into [the] anarchist utopia." Rather, Bakunin (being Russian) hoped Russia would have a libertarian revolution, but he also hoped the
same for France, Spain, Italy and all countries in Europe (indeed, the world). He opposed the Russian Empire and he wished "the destruction of the Empire of All the Russias" and
supported national liberation struggles of nationalities oppressed by Russia (and any other imperialist nation). [The Basic Bakunin, p. 162] Unlike Proudhon, he supported Polish
National liberation although he recognised that "its leading parties, which are still drawn primarily from the gentry. have been unable to renounce their state-centred program" and
hoped that the national movement would embrace economic change and seek the "liberation and renewal of their homeland in social revolution". [Statism and Anarchy, p. 40]

McNally moves on to "Bakunin's organisational methods", stating that they "were overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian." This assertion completely misunderstands Bakunin's ideas
on how revolutionaries should organise and influence working class organisations as well as the revolutionary process. Before turning to these, we must discuss Bakunin's views on
social organisation as these indicate what his "utopia" (to use McNally's word) would be like and place his ideas on how anarchists should organise into context. If this is not
done then Bakunin cannot be understood nor how later anarchists revised his ideas.

We must start by pointing out that Bakunin's viewpoints on the organisational methods of mass working class organisations and those of political groupings were somewhat different.
As we show in section 9, Bakunin had what would now be termed a syndicalist position on the labour movement and so he rejected organising political parties and electioneering
("political action") in favour of "the development and organisation… of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses as much in the towns as in the
countryside." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 197-8] This was reflected in his ideas on social revolution as expressed in 1868:

    "the federative Alliance of all working men's associations… will constitute the Commune . . . by the creation of a Revolutionary Communal Council composed of one or two
    delegates… vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates . . . all provinces, communes and associations… [would send] their representatives to an agreed meeting
    place . . . vested with similar mandates to constitute the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces… to organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating
    reaction… it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph
    of the revolution . . . Since revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised in a free federation of
    agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation" [Op. Cit., pp. 170-2]

How is this federation of workers councils based on elected, mandated and recallable delegates organised from the bottom-up "elitist and authoritarian"? Compare this to McNally's
own words on the soviets of the Russian Revolution:

    "The Russian revolution was based upon a wholly new kind of social organisation, the workers' council or soviet. These councils, based on elected delegates from the workplace
    and the neighbourhoods, became the new decision-making bodies of Russia. They were organs of direct democracy whose delegates, like those of the Paris Commune, could be
    recalled by the electors. The soviets represented a new form of mass democracy. It was for this reason that Lenin and Trotsky made the demand for 'All power to the soviets!'
    the central slogan of the Russian revolution."

As noted in section 4, Proudhon had already raised the idea of recallable delegates in the 1848 revolution and it was his followers who applied them in 1871. Given McNally's praise
of the Paris Commune and the Russian soviets, it seems strange that Bakunin's comments with regards to revolutionary social organisation with its obvious parallels to both should
not be mentioned. Perhaps because to do so would totally undermine his case? Thus rather than being "overwhelmingly elitist and authoritarian" Bakunin's ideas on a future society
have marked similarities to the actual structures created by working people in struggle and are marked by libertarian and self-managed visions and concepts -- as anyone familiar
with Bakunin's work would know.

The key difference between Bakunin and Lenin is that for the former turning the soviets into a state (even a so-called "workers' state") as desired by the latter would mean that
power moved from the bottom to the top, empowering the few at the expense of the many. Given that Lenin's aim was the creation of a Bolshevik government it comes as no surprise
that this "central slogan" of the revolution was quickly violated (see section H.1.7). As Bakunin once put it, there is the "Republic-State" and there is "the system of the
Republic-Commune, the Republic-Federation, i.e. the system of Anarchism. This is the politics of the Social Revolution, which aims at the abolition of the State and establishment
of the economic, entirely free organisation of the people -- organisation from bottom to top by means of federation." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 314] The difference
is fundamental and not simply a question of words (see section H.2.1).

The question now arises of how Bakunin thought revolutionaries should influence both working class struggle and revolution. While not completely libertarian, Bakunin's ideas on
this issue are different than McNally's summary would suggest.

The aim of the political grouping was to exercise a "natural influence" on the members of unions and associations, seeking to convince them of the validity of anarchist ideas.
The political group did not aim to seize political power (unlike Marxists) and so it "rule[d] out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control." All it could do was to "assist
the birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses" and act "as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct."
It "help[s] the people towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality and the fullest freedom in every direction, without the least interference from
any sort of domination." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 172 and p. 191] The "sole aim of a secret society must be, not the creation of an artificial power outside the
people, but the rousing, uniting and organising of the spontaneous power of the people". It "does not foist upon the people any new regulations, orders, styles of life, but merely
unleashes its will and gives wide scope to its self-determination and social organisation, which must be created by itself from below and not above. The organisation must accept
in all sincerity the idea that it is a servant and a helper, but never a commander, of the people, never under any pretext its manager, not even under the pretext of the people's
welfare." The secret society "acts on the people only by the natural personal influence of its members who are not invested with any power" and so this "does not threaten the
liberty of the people because it is free from all official character. It is not placed above the people like state power because its whole aim, defined by its programme, consists
of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the people." [quoted by Michael Confino, Daughter of a Revolutionary, p. 250, pp. 258-9 and p. 261]

As we discuss in more detail in section J.3.7, the key to understanding the role of Bakunin's secret societies is to recognise that rather than seek to be elected into positions of
power, they would work within popular organisations at the base and argue their ideas and win others over to them (i.e., their "natural personal influence"). This is why Bakunin
considered such organisations as being no danger to popular liberty -- by not having power they could not force their ideas onto others, unlike a new state regime. All this is
ignored by McNally.

McNally then quotes "one historian" on Bakunin. It should be noted that not even providing a name makes evaluating the accuracy of the historian's work impossible and so leaves
the reader in the dark as to whether the historian does provide a valid account of Bakunin's ideas. However, after investigation the historian in question is George Lichtheim whom
McNally feels provides "the most reliable guides to early socialist thought" presumably because his account chimes with all the standard Marxist prejudices, assumptions and errors
about anarchism (significantly McNally ignores Lichtheim's statement that Bakunin's supported "anti-authoritarian collectivism"). A socialist, Lichtheim opposed Marxist-Leninism
while presenting a sceptical but superficial account of anarchism. This can be seen from the words McNally quotes:

    "The International Brotherhood he founded in Naples in 1865-66 was as conspiratorial and dictatorial as he could make it, for Bakunin's libertarianism stopped short of
    the notion of permitting anyone to contradict him. The Brotherhood was conceived on the Masonic model, with elaborate rituals, a hierarchy, and a self-appointed directory
    consisting of Bakunin and a few associates." [A Short History of Socialism, p. 126]

First, it should be noted that Bakunin considered secret societies as necessary because, at the time, most countries were monarchies and did not have basic civil liberties. Bakunin
had been imprisoned by the Tsar for his activities during the 1848 revolution and so had personal experience of the fate of revolutionaries who were caught by these regimes. As
Murray Bookchin argues, "Bakunin's emphasis on conspiracy and secrecy can be understood only against the social background of Italy, Spain, and Russia the three countries in Europe
where conspiracy and secrecy were matters of sheer survival." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 24] McNally ignores the historical context -- and the awkward fact that Marxists have also
favoured secret groupings in the face of similar regimes.

Second, it should be noted that in 1865-6 Bakunin was just becoming an anarchist and this period "represents the transition from the revolutionary nationalism of his middle-years
to the revolutionary anarchism of his last period." The "rituals" of the International Brotherhood were not reflected in later organisations because, as Bakunin admitted to
a recruit, "they aren't necessary. We invented that for the Italians". In other words, they reflected the revolutionary traditions of the democratic conspiracies of that
country rather than his own ideas, something confirmed by James Guillaume, his associate in the Alliance of Social Democracy, who recounted this, Bakunin's group in the First
International, "had little resemblance to 'the classic type of secret society where one had to obey orders coming from above.' Bakunin's organisation was nothing more than a 'free
association of men who were uniting for collective action, without formalities, without ceremonies or mysterious rites.'" As for the Brotherhood, "the constitution thus laid down
was to be regarded as provisional; for when the Brotherhood attained a membership of seventy, a constituent assembly was to be convened which would determine the definite rules and
programme of the organisation." [E.H. Carr, Michael Bakunin, p. 320, p. 316, p. 357 and p. 315]

Third, this summary is simply inaccurate. To show this, we shall quote from Bakunin's letter to the Russian Nihilist Sergy Nechayev in which he explains the differences in their
ideas. He discusses the "principles and mutual conditions" for a "new society" of revolutionaries in Russia (noting that this was an "outline of a plan" which "must be developed,
supplemented, and sometimes altered according to circumstances"):

    "Equality among all members and the unconditional and absolute solidarity -- one for all and all for one -- with the obligation for each and everyone to help each other,
    support and save each other. . . Complete frankness among members and proscription of any Jesuitical methods in their relationships . . . When a member has to say anything
    against another member, this must be done at a general meeting and in his presence. General fraternal control of each other . . . Everyone's personal intelligence vanished like
    a river in the sea in the collective intelligence and all members obey unconditionally the decisions of the latter.

    "All members are equal; they know all their comrades and discuss and decide with them all the most important and essential questions bearing on the programme of the society and
    the progress of the cause. The decision of the general meeting is absolute law. . . The society chooses an Executive Committee from among their number consisting of three or
    five members who should organise the branches of the society and manage its activities in all the regions of the [Russian] Empire on the basis of the programme and general plan
    of action adopted by the decision of the society as a whole. . . This Committee is elected for an indefinite term. If the society . . . the People's Fraternity is satisfied
    with the actions of the Committee, it will be left as such; and while it remains a Committee each member . . . and each regional group have to obey it unconditionally, except
    in such cases where the orders of the Committee contradict either the general programme of the principle rules, or the general revolutionary plan of action, which are known
    to everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion of them. . . In such a case members of the group must halt the execution of the Committee's orders and
    call the Committee to judgement before the general meeting . . . If the general meeting is discontented with the Committee, it can always substitute another one for it. . . Any
    member or any group is subject to judgement by the general meeting . . . No new Brother can be accepted without the consent of all or at the very least three-quarters of all
    the members. . .

    "The Committee divides the members . . . among the Regions and constitutes Regional groups of leaderships from them . . . Regional leadership is charged with organising the
    second tier of the society -- the Regional Fraternity, on the basis of the same programme, the same rules, and the same revolutionary plan . . . Each Regional Committee will
    set up District Committees from members of the Regional Fraternity . . . District Committees can, if necessary and only with the consent of the Regional Committee, set up a
    third tier of the organisation -- District Fraternity with a programme and regulations as near as possible to the general programme and regulations of the People's Fraternity.
    The programme and regulations of the District Fraternity will not come into force until they are discussed and passed by the general meeting of the Regional Fraternity and have
    been confirmed by the Regional Committee. . .

    "Jesuitical control . . . are totally excluded from all three tiers of the secret organisation . . . The strength of the whole society, as well as the morality, loyalty, energy
    and dedication of each member, is based exclusively and totally on the shared truth, sincerity and trust, and on the open fraternal control of all over each one." [quoted by
    Confino, Op. Cit., pp. 264-6]

As can be seen, while there is much in Bakunin's ideas that few anarchists would agree with today, it cannot be said that it was "dictatorial" as McNally and Lichtheim wish to
suggest. Ironically, as we note in section H.2.14, there are distinct similarities to Lenin's (and Marx's during the 1848 revolution) ideas on how revolutionaries should organise.
Thus we find Lenin arguing in What is to be Done? for "a powerful and strictly secret organisation, which concentrates in its hands all the threads of secret activities, an
organisation which of necessity must be a centralised organisation" because the revolutionary movement would "benefit by the fact that a 'dozen' experienced revolutionaries, no
less professionally trained than the police, will centralise all the secret side of the work -- prepare leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders for each
urban district, for each factory district and for each educational institution, etc." Under Tsarism, the "only serious organisational principle the active workers of our movement
can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members, and the training of professional revolutionaries." [The Essential Lenin, p. 158, p. 149 and p. 162]

The parallels with Bakunin's system are clear and are predominately the result of the identical political conditions both revolutionaries experienced. While anarchists are happy to
indicate and oppose the non-libertarian aspects of Bakunin's ideas, it is hard for the likes of the McNally to attack Bakunin while embracing Lenin's ideas on the party, justifying
their more "undemocratic" aspects as a result of the objective conditions of Tsarism. Worse, in 1920 these principles were agreed by the Communist International, including the
necessity of both legal and illegal structures within the party for "the Communist parties must learn to combine legal and illegal activity in a planned way. However, the legal
work must be placed under the actual control of the illegal party at all times." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 198-9] Anarchists have, since
Bakunin's death, rejected his ideas that anarchists should organise in a centralised fashion (see section J.3).

Therefore, McNally has a problem. On the one hand, he denounces Bakunin's ideas of a centralised, secret top-down organisation of revolutionaries. On the other, the party structure
that Lenin recommends is also a tightly disciplined, centralised, top-down structure with a membership limited to those who are willing to be professional revolutionaries. So if he
attacks Bakunin, he must also attack Lenin, not to do so is hypocrisy. And, unlike Bakunin, Lenin wished his party to seize state power -- which then used it to build a system in
its own image (see section H.5.9).

At this point it will be objected that Lenin's party was more democratic and he allowed people to disagree with him. Yet Lichtheim's summation leaves a lot to be desired. To point
to just three examples: the historian T.R. Ravindranathan indicates that "Bakunin wanted the Alliance to become a branch of the International [Working Men's Association] and at the
same time preserve it as a secret society. The Italian and some French members wanted the Alliance to be totally independent of the IWA and objected to Bakunin's secrecy. Bakunin's
view prevailed on the first question as he succeeded in convincing the majority of the harmful effects of a rivalry between the Alliance and the International. On the question of
secrecy, he gave way to his opponents". [Bakunin and the Italians, p. 83]; while other Bakunin influenced sent delegates to the Hague Congress of the First International in 1872,
the Italian sections decided not to; The Spanish section of the Alliance "survived Bakunin . . . yet with few exceptions it continued to function in much the same way as it had
done during Bakunin's lifetime." [George R. Esenwein, Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, p. 43] Hardly what you would expect if Lichtheim's comments were
accurate.

The evidence suggests that the Alliance "was not a compulsory or authoritarian body." In Spain, it "acted independently and was prompted by purely local situations. The copious
correspondence between Bakunin and his friends . . . was at all times motivated by the idea of offering advice, persuading, and clarifying. It was never written in a spirit of
command, because that was not his style, nor would it have been accepted as such by his associates." Moreover, there "is no trace or shadow or hierarchical organisation in a
letter from Bakunin to [Spanish anarchist] Mora . . . On the contrary, Bakunin advises 'direct' relations between Spanish and Italian Comrades." The Spanish comrades also wrote
a pamphlet which "ridiculed the fable of orders from abroad." [Juan Gomez Casa, Anarchist Organisation, p. 25 and p. 40] This is confirmed by George R. Esenwein, who argues that
"[w]hile it is true that Bakunin's direct intervention during the early days of the International's development in Spain had assured the pre-dominance of his influence in the
various federations and sections" of the organisation, "it cannot be said that he manipulated it or otherwise used the Spanish Alliance as a tool for his own subversive designs."
Thus, "though the Alliance did exist in Spain, the society did not bear any resemblance to the nefarious organisation that the Marxists depicted." [Op. Cit., p. 42] Indeed, as Max
Nettlau points out, those Spaniards who did break with the Alliance were persuaded of its "hierarchical organisation . . . not by their own direct observation, but by what they had
been told [by Marxists] about the conduct of the organisation" in other countries. [quoted by Casa, Op. Cit., pp. 39-40]

In summary, McNally's comments are a distortion of Bakunin's ideas and activities. He misrepresents one aspect of Bakunin's ideas while ignoring those aspects which support working
class self-organisation and self-management. Ironically, he ignores the awkward fact that Bakunin's and Lenin's ideas on how revolutionaries should organise were similar (as to be
expected given similar circumstances) but with the key difference that Lenin, unlike Bakunin, sought state power for the professional revolutionaries (see section H.3.11).

6. Are these "quirks of personality" or "rooted in the very nature of anarchist doctrine"?

After chronicling the failings of, and distorting the facts about, two individuals, McNally tries to generalise. "These characteristics of Bakunin and Proudhon," he argues, "were
not mere quirks of personality. Their elitism, authoritarianism and support for backward-looking and narrow-minded causes are rooted in the very nature of anarchist doctrine." Thus
McNally claims that these failings of Proudhon and Bakunin are not personal failings but rather political. They, he suggests, represent the reactionary core of anarchist politics
but makes no attempt to show that this is the case. Worse, many of his claims about "anarchist doctrine" are simply untrue and, once corrected, leave little left other than "quirks
of personality".

Take, for example, Proudhon's position on the American Civil War. Let us assume that McNally's assertion is correct (as shown in section 4 it is not) and he supported the South.
Bakunin "supported the Union in the struggle between the states". [Paul Avrich, Anarchist Portraits, p. 20] What does this mean for "anarchist doctrine"? Which of the two
represented the "real" anarchist position? So the question remains why Proudhon's refusal to support either side during the American Civil War (his actual position) is an example
of "anarchist doctrine" while Bakunin's support of the North is not. Proudhon, to raise another obvious example, did not share Bakunin's interest in secret societies (nor did
Kropotkin, Goldman, etc.). What does this tell us about "the very nature of anarchist doctrine"? Could Bakunin's position not be better explained by him being imprisoned in a
Tsarist dungeon? Could it be that rather than attack anarchism, McNally simply attacks the failings of individual anarchists?

Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin and other revolutionary anarchists supported both unions and strikes and, as Kropotkin summarised, anarchists "do not seek to constitute, and invite the
working men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments. Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men's Association in 1864-1866, they have
endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in
parliamentary legislation". How can Proudhon's position represent "the very nature of anarchist doctrine" when he was the only one to hold it? Similarly, Kropotkin simply (and
rightly) dismissed Proudhon's position on women's equality as one "which most modern writers will, of course, not agree." [Direct Struggle Against Capital, p. 165 and p. 218] If
McNally is right then we can only conclude that only Proudhon amongst all anarchist thinkers understood what anarchism stood for. That is, needless to say, unlikely and so we can
only conclude that Proudhon's sexism and opposition to strikes were "quirks of personality" which later anarchists rejected in favour of a more consistent libertarian position (in
the case of Proudhon's anti-feminism) or as inadequate (in the case of Proudhon's reformism). Neither, in short, is inherent to anarchist theory and it would be silly to suggest
they were.

It should also be noted that Marx and Engels took positions which modern readers would consider strange at best. In the case of slavery, Marx suggested in his polemic against
Proudhon that if you "[c]ause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations". [Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 167] Engels, unsurprisingly, after the
American Civil War added a note suggesting that this obvious tolerance of slavery was only valid in 1847. A few years later, in the early 1850s, Marx argued that slavery in Jamaica
had been marked by "freshly imported BARBARIANS" in contrast to the United States where "the present generation of Negroes" was "a native product, more or less Yankeefied" and
"hence capable of being emancipated." {Op. Cit., vol. 39, p. 346] The many comments by Marx and Engels on the progressive role of imperialism in replacing traditional societies by
capitalist social relationships are also relevant in this context as are the many racists comments on Slavs and other peoples (including Jews). In other words, Proudhon and Bakunin
were not the only major socialist thinkers to express racist views and if they are to be dismissed as a result then why not Marx and Engels as well?

We will draw upon Roman Rosdolsky's important work "Engels and the ‘Nonhistoric' Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848." ( Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory,
No. 18/19) to sketch the bigotries of Marx and Engels (unless otherwise indicated all quotes in this section come from Rosdolsky's work). As will be seen, on almost every issue
McNally raises against Proudhon and Bakunin we find similar comments by Marx and Engels.

Unsurprisingly, given the times, Marx and Engels made numerous anti-Semitic remarks both in private and public. During the 1848 revolution, the paper Marx edited (Neue Rheinische
Zeitung) published the reports of Mu:ller-Tellering who expressed "an all too maniacal hatred" of Jews. Engels wrote "very unpleasant passages on the (Polish) Jews" [193, 116],
describing them as "the very incarnation of haggling, avarice and sordidness" and "the meanest of all races" with "its lust for profit." The Austrian Jews had "exploited the
revolution and are now being punished for it" while "anyone who knows how powerful" they were. He generalised by suggesting that "Jews are known to be cheated cheats everywhere"
and, according to Marx, they had put themselves "at the head of the counter-revolution" and so the revolution had "to throw them back into their ghetto". [quoted 192, 203,196]
Marx's paper "did not dissociate itself from the anti-Semitic 'popular opinion'" and its articles resulted in some of its backers who were Jewish demanding the return of their
money as it preached "religious hatred." [201, 191]

Yet the despicable attitude expressed against Jews in Neue Rheinische Zeitung is the least of the issues of concern here given the opinions expressed over Slavs by the founders
of Marxism. Thus we find Engels asserting that the Slavs have been "forced to attain the first stage of civilisation only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will
never be able to achieve any kind of independence" and that the conquered should be grateful to the Germans for "having given themselves the trouble of civilising the stubborn
Czechs and Slovenes, and introducing among them trade, industry, a tolerable degree of agriculture, and culture!" [Marx-Engels Collected Works, vol. 8, p 238] Worse, Engels
proclaimed that "one day we shall take a bloody revenge on the Slavs for this cowardly and base betrayal of the revolution" and "hatred of the Russians was, and still is, the
first revolutionary passion of the Germans". The revolution could only be secured "against these Slavs peoples by the most decisive acts of terrorism" and "a war of annihilation
and ruthless terrorism, not in the interests of Germany but in the interests of the revolution!" There would be "a bloody revenge in the Slav barbarians" and a war which will "
annihilate all these small pig-headed nations even to their very names" and "will not only cause reactionary classes and dynasties to disappear from the face of the earth, but also
entire reactionary peoples. And that too is an advance." [quoted, 85, 86]

In short, Engels advocated ethnic cleansing in the name of the revolution against those whom he considered "nonhistoric" peoples. This was recognised by leading Marxist Karl
Kautsky who, rightly, denounced him for advocating that "they had to be exterminated" [quoted 90] Regardless of what drove these rants, as Rosdolsky rightly states "it no way
nullifies the fact that they made entire peoples the object of this hatred and proclaimed a 'war of annihilation' against them." [87]

Ignoring the genocidal ethnic cleansing proclaimed against the Slavs (bar Poles) and other "nonhistoric" people, Engels wrote of the war which "broke out over Texas" between
Mexico and the USA and how it was good that "that magnificent California was snatched from the lazy Mexicans, who did not know what to do with it" by "the energetic Yankees."
[quoted, 159] He failed to mention that the revolt of 1836 over Texas which was the root of the 1846 war was conducted by "planters, owners of Negro slaves, and their main reason
for revolting was that slavery had been abolished in Mexico in 1829." [160] In fact in 1845 a majority of voters in the Republic of Texas approved a proposed constitution that
specifically endorsed slavery and the slave trade and was later accepted by the U.S. Congress. Unlike Engels, Northern abolitionists attacked this war as an attempt by slave-owners
to strengthen the grip of slavery and ensure their influence in the federal government and publicly declared their wish for the defeat of the American forces. Henry David Thoreau
was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, penning his famous essay Civil Disobedience. [Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States , pp. 155-7]
Rosdolsky rightly comments on how "inappropriate, in fact perverse, was Engels' illustration." [160]

So we find distinct parallels between McNally's attacks on Proudhon and the many racist and anti-Semitic remarks by Marx and Engels (as listed by Peter Fryer in his "Engels: A Man
of his Time" [John Lea and Geoff Pilling (eds.), The condition of Britain: Essays on Frederick Engels]) as well as their siding with slave states against abolitionist ones. Nor
did Marx, it must be noted, denounce Proudhon's racism or sexism (he also failed to comment on the Paris Commune being elected by male universal suffrage, thinking nothing of the
exclusion of half the population while proclaiming its democratic nature). Strangely, most Marxists (rightly) condemning Proudhon for his bigotries are silent about this -- as
silent as they are on the awkward facts that Proudhon did not actually support the Southern States in the American Civil War and that a one-off, never repeated, comment made in a
private notebook simply cannot be taken as expressing his political ideas (see section 4 for details).

The fact is, once we correct McNally's errors, we discover that the vast majority of Proudhon's and Bakunin's positions are not "backward-looking and narrow-minded", quite
the reverse. Where a position is so (Proudhon's position to trade unions and feminism being the most obvious examples) then we quickly discover that subsequent anarchists
publicly rejected it. Most of the position's McNally paints as "anarchist doctrine" were not actually held by either Proudhon or Bakunin (such as, opposition to industry and
collectively-owned and managed property). Rather than take examples which are common to most anarchist theorists -- and so actually reflective of "anarchist doctrine" -- McNally
takes only a few positions held by one, at most two, major anarchist thinkers. Worse, these positions are tangential to the core of their ideas and, indeed, directly opposed to
them (such as infrequently expressed bigotries against specific peoples being in obvious conflict to their other, more common, support for racial equality). From this minority of
examples McNally generalises a theory -- and so violates the basic principles of the scientific method!

So McNally's position leaves something to be desired. Why is Proudhon's opposition to trade unions and strikes is an example "anarchist doctrine" while Bakunin's (and Kropotkin's,
Malatesta's, Berkman's, Goldman's, etc.) support for both is not? Why is Proudhon's sexism "anarchist doctrine" but Bakunin's (and Kropotkin's, Goldman's, Malatesta's, etc.)
support for women's liberty and equality is not? Why proclaim Bakunin "shared most of Proudhon's views" when anyone who did the most basic research would quickly conclude that in
these two issues (and others!) Bakunin rightly rejected the positions McNally raises with regards to Frenchman's ideas? Worse, many of the positions McNally attacks Proudhon for
are simply inaccurate -- he simply did not hold the ideas McNally so confidently asserts he did.

Moreover, as Daniel Gue'rin notes "[m]any of these masters were not anarchists throughout their lives and their complete works include passages which have nothing to do with
anarchism." Bakunin, for example, was only an anarchist from around 1864 to his death in 1876 while "in the second part of his career Proudhon's thinking took a conservative turn".
[Anarchism, p. 6] As such, the positions McNally, rightly, attacks (once his errors are corrected!) are clearly "quirks of personality" rather than somehow "rooted in the very
nature of anarchist doctrine." This can be seen from the awkward fact that no later anarchists advocated them. Not to mention the awkward fact that Marx and Engels shared similar
views as those McNally attacks Proudhon and Bakunin for having (even if, in reality, they did not hold the positions McNally claims they did).

These examples in themselves prove the weakness of McNally's claims and the low levels of scholarship which lay behind them. Indeed, it is amazing that the SWP /ISO printed this
diatribe -- it obviously shows their contempt for facts, history and the intelligence of their desired audience.

7. Are anarchists against democracy?

McNally asserts the following:

    "Originating in the revolt of small property owners against the centralising and collectivising trends in capitalist development (the tendency to concentrate production in
    fewer and fewer large workplaces), anarchism has always been rooted in a hostility to democratic and collectivist practices. The early anarchists feared the organised power of
    the modern working class. To this day, most anarchists defend the 'liberty' of the private individual against the democratically made decisions of collective groups."

As indicated in section 3, the notion that anarchists are against large-scale industry or collective property is simply an invention. Both Proudhon and Bakunin, for example, argued
for collective management and ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves. Indeed, workers' self-management of production and collective ownership were raised
in the very first anarchist book, Proudhon's What is Property? and both have remained an key aspect of anarchism ever since. Proudhon put it well: "Large industry and high culture
come to us by big monopoly and big property: it is necessary in the future to make them rise from the association." [quoted by [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the
Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 156] So workers' associations running workplaces is at the heart of anarchism, an easy fact to discover if you bother to read Proudhon and
Bakunin -- as is the fact that Bakunin supported revolutionary trade unionism as the means of producing a social revolution (see section 9). So much for "fear[ing] the organised
power of the modern working class"!

So the premise of his assertion is factually incorrect. What of the conclusion, the idea that anarchists support the liberty to ignore "the democratically made decisions of
collective groups"? Here McNally takes a grain of truth to create a lie.

First, however, we need to ask an obvious question: what does "democracy" mean? Or, more correctly, what kind of democracy are we talking about? If quoting Lenin is not too out of
place, in a section of his pamphlet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky in section entitled "How Kautsky Turned Marx Into A Common Liberal", Lenin stated it was
"natural for a liberal to speak of 'democracy' in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: 'for what class?'" [The Lenin Anthology, p. 465] So the question is not whether
anarchists support "democracy" or not but what kind of democracy and for whom. For if McNally is right (and he is) and there are two kinds of socialism (one "from above" and one
"from below") then there are multiple kinds of democracy: centralised and decentralised; unitarian and federal, top-down and bottom-up; bourgeois and workers. That is why Proudhon
talked of the workers democracy ( "De'mocratie ouvrie`re") in his last work, contrasting it to the democracy (the left-Jacobin bourgeois-republican democracy which included the
state socialists), but the elements of which he had been expounding upon since the 1840s.

A close reading of Proudhon shows that his main opposition to "democracy" was that it was, paradoxically, not democratic enough as it referred to the Jacobin notion that the whole
nation as one body should elect a government. In such a regime "the People reigns and does not govern, which is to deny the Revolution." [Property is Theft!, p. 267] He sought a
social organisation in which people had meaningful control over their own lives -- as individuals and as groups, collectives. This was not possible under a centralised democracy
and so "universal suffrage provides us, . . . in an embryonic state, with the complete system of future society. If it is reduced to the people nominating a few hundred deputies
who have no initiative . . . social sovereignty becomes a mere fiction and the Revolution is strangled at birth." [Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 123] Nor was it
possible as long as workers did not control their work and workplaces. This meant, as discussed in section 4, he argued for a decentralised, federal bottom-up system of communal
and workplace associations based on elected, mandated and recallable delegates:

    "we are all voters; we can choose the most worthy . . . we can follow them step-by-step in their legislative acts and their votes; we will make them transmit our arguments and
    our documents; we will suggest our will to them, and when we are discontented, we will recall and dismiss them.

    "The choice of talents, the imperative mandate . . . and permanent revocability are the most immediate and incontestable consequences of the electoral principle. It is the
    inevitable program of all democracy. [ Property is Theft!, p. 273]

As we noted in section 5, Bakunin had identical ideas on the need for a decentralised, federal, bottom-up social organisation based on elected, mandated and recallable delegates.
Rather than express "hostility to democratic and collectivist practices", anarchists have always sought to discover which social forms allow genuine democratic and collectivist
practices to flourish -- a "democracy" which reduces the masses to simply picking their masters every few years while workers were employed by bosses would not promote libertarian
values. Hence the support for workers' self-management of production by democratic associations, communal self-government and social-economic federalism even the casual reader
would find in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin but which McNally fails to mention.

Anarchists are well aware that support for democratic collectives in the workplace and community is a necessary but not sufficient condition for individual freedom (to quote
McNally, the "challenge is to restore to socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human freedom"). This is because collectives can make bad decisions, the
majority can -- and does -- act oppressively towards the minority. For example, the United States has seen numerous votes on the issue of homosexual rights which saw the majority
of voters or their representatives reject equality. That the majority are against equality for gays does not make it right -- anymore than previous majorities against equality for
women and blacks were right. If a majority vote for a right-wing party which promises to make strikes illegal would McNally accept that decision and urge trade unionists to obey
the democratic decisions of the collectivity? Would a referendum result make it any more just and worthy of respect? What if the majority vote to ban the teaching of evolution in
all schools? And, finally, what if the majority vote in favour of authoritarian regimes? This is no idle question, it happened in, for example, France in 1851 and 1852 (much to
Proudhon's disgust).

Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that the right often invoke the "silent majority" against the progressive minorities seeking change. The term was popularised (though not
first used) by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1969 when he asked for the support of "the great silent majority of my fellow Americans", those who felt threatened by attacks on
"traditional values" during the 1960s -- the civil rights, women's and peace movements as well as student rebellions, the counter-culture, wildcat strikes, and so on. Nixon, it
should be noted, won a landslide victory in the 1972 Presidential election and took 49 of 50 states. The Thatcher government, likewise, invoked its democratic credentials (in
spite of never receiving an actual majority of support) when launching state repression against strikes (particularly the 1984-85 miners' strike) and imposing the most draconian
anti-union laws in the Western World. Their trade union "reforms" included forcing a paper ballot of members before taking strike action, so replacing the mass union meeting with
the atomised democracy of the bourgeois state. Many Tory politicians wish to go further and impose yet more legislation which would outlaw strikes unless a majority of trade union
members take part in the ballot as well as the majority voting for strike action (rather than just the majority of those voting in the ballot) -- in the interests of "democracy",
of course, as it would stop "unrepresentative" minorities disrupting the (non-union) majority.

Needless to say, this is a condition they never suggest for the electing of politicians for good reason: "democratic" government usually means government by those elected by a
minority of a population. For example, in the 2012 London Mayor election the successful candidate received just over 50% of a 38% turn-out, meaning that the successful candidate
represented a mere 20% of the city's population. It should also be stressed that this minority of voters did not actually make decisions -- that rested in the hands of one
person, the mayor. In other words, power over a city of ten million rested in the hands a person elected by 20% of those eligible to vote. The same can be said of U.S. elections,
particularly Presidential ones. So democracy can easily mean government by the largest minority although, in practice, it means government of the few elected by the largest
minority of the minority who bother to vote. None of which is very democratic and confirms Proudhon's critique that "nothing resembles a monarchy more than a re'publique unitaire".
[quoted by Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 211]

So invoking "democracy" is problematic, given its wide number of uses. At its most basic, the majority can be wrong (as can be seen from the numerous crooks, incompetents,
authoritarians and demagogues who have managed to win the popular vote). The aim, of course, is to change the views of the majority but that cannot be done by simply obeying its
unjust opinions but rather challenging them by direct action -- or "ignoring" them to use McNally's term. As we note in section H.2.11, all progressive movements -- whether trade
unionism, civil rights activism, feminism and gay rights -- started out as minorities (and sometimes remained so!) but managed, by direct action and protest (i.e., ignoring the
wishes of the majority) to change perspectives and make society more freedom and just (see Kropotkin's essay "Revolutionary Minorities" in Words of a Rebel for further discussion).
Malatesta put it well:

    "We do not recognise the right of the majority to impose the law on the minority, even if the will of the majority in somewhat complicated issues could really be ascertained.
    The fact of having the majority on one's side does not in any way prove that one must be right. Indeed, humanity has always advanced through the initiative and efforts of
    individuals and minorities . . . [W]e are even more opposed to domination of the majority by a minority. It would be absurd to maintain that one is right because one is in a
    minority . . . [I]t is not a question of being right or wrong; it is a question of freedom, freedom for all, freedom for each individual so long as he does not violate the
    equal freedom of others . . . it is necessary that majority and minority should succeed in living together peacefully and profitably by mutual agreement and compromise, by the
    intelligent recognition of the practical necessities of communal life and of the usefulness of concessions which circumstances make necessary." [ Errico Malatesta: His Life and
    Ideas, p. 72]

So, yes, anarchists do defend the liberty of individuals to rebel against the decisions of collective groups (we should point out that Marxists usually use such expressions as a
euphemism for the state, but here we will take it at face value). This is for two very good reasons. Firstly, the majority is not always right. Secondly, simply because progress is
guaranteed by individual liberty -- by dissent. That is what McNally is attacking here -- the right of individuals and groups to dissent, to express themselves and live their own
lives. As we argue in section A.2.11, most anarchists are in favour of direct democracy in free associations. However, we agree with Carole Pateman when she argues:

    "The essence of liberal social contract theory is that individuals ought to promise to, or enter an agreement to, obey representatives, to whom they have 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]

She indicates an obvious truth which McNally ignores:

    "Even if it is impossible to be unjust to myself, I do not vote for myself alone, but along with everyone else. Questions about injustice are always appropriate in political
    life, for there is no guarantee that participatory voting will actually result in decisions in accord with the principles of political morality." [Op. Cit., p. 160]

Thus, for anarchists, a democracy which does not involve individual rights to dissent, to disagree and to practice civil disobedience would violate freedom and equality, the very
values McNally claims to be at the heart of Marxism. He is essentially arguing that the minority becomes the slave of the majority -- with no right of dissent when the majority
is wrong or being unjust and restricting the freedom democracy is meant to be based upon, reflect and defend. In effect, he wishes the minority to be subordinate, not equal, to
the majority. Anarchists, in contrast, because we support self-management also recognise the importance of dissent and individuality -- in essence, because we are in favour of
self-management ("democracy" does not do the concept justice) we also favour the individual freedom that is its rationale. We support the liberty of private individuals because we
believe in self-management ("democracy") so passionately.

Then there is the question of which "collective groups" make the democratic decision. This is a key issue for anyone concerned about freedom for its answer determines what kind of
democracy we are talking about -- a meaningful one which empowers all or a formal one which restricts what democracy is meant to be about?

For example, during debates on Scottish Independence some commentators suggest that limiting the vote on whether Scotland should withdraw from the UK to just those who lived there
was "undemocratic" as the consequences impacted on those who lived in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, expanding the vote would have meant that the democratic decision
of those in Scotland -- a small minority of the total population of the UK -- would have been irrelevant to the final decision. This can be generalised to all nation states which
contain distinct cultural or ethic groupings within it. Can it be considered "democratic" to favour "collective groups" which ensure the marginalisation of minorities who wish to
govern themselves?

This applies with equal force to the labour movement. In terms of strike action, which "collective groups" get to decide? Is it a sub-unit of a union branch (for example, IT staff
within a University facing a restructuring), the branch (in which the IT staff may be a minority), the region or the national union. The strike decision would impact on all these
levels but McNally's position gives no guidance for what is the correct level. Is it "democratic" if the sub-unit of the branch has to face redundancies because the majority of the
branch does not support strike action? Is it "democratic" if the local branch cannot strike because the majority of the national union considers it harmful to the union as a whole?

This is no academic discussion as the answer has a significant impact on the evolution of the labour movement. In the Marxist-influenced German unions, the prejudice for
centralisation meant that the whole union (in practice, a few leaders at the top) was considered the key collective group and so "every local strike had first to be approved by
the Central, which was often hundreds of miles away and was not usually in a position to pass a correct judgement on the local conditions" which lead to "inertia of the apparatus
of the organisation [and] renders a quick attack quite impossible". The unions were "condemned . . . to stagnation" and the structure "kills the spirit and the vital initiative of
its members." This "turned over the affairs of everybody in a lump to a small minority" and resulted in "barren official routine" which "crushed individual conviction, kills all
personal initiative by lifeless discipline and bureaucratic ossification and permits no independent action." [ Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 61 and p. 60]

The anarchist position is clear -- the appropriate group makes the decision. Thus federalism allows "free combination from below upward, putting the right of self-determination
of every member above everything else and recognising only the organic agreement of all on the basis of like interests and common convictions." [Rocker, Op. Cit., p. 60]
Unsurprisingly, then, we discover that the most militant British union was that of the miners which had, due to syndicalist influence, a decentralised, federal structure based on
autonomous branches. And, as Rocker notes, while the German unions made no attempt to resist the Nazi seizure of power, the anarcho-syndicalist CNT rose in insurrection and stopped
Franco across two-thirds of Spain in 1936.

Simply put, Marxism (as McNally presents it here) flies in the face of how societies change and develop. New ideas start with individuals and minorities and spread by argument and
by force of example. McNally is urging the end of the free expression of individuality. For example, who would seriously defend a society that "democratically" decided that, say,
homosexuals should not be allowed the freedom to associate? Or that inter-racial marriage was against "Natural Law"? Or that trade unions and strikes should be outlawed as the acts
of "selfish" minorities? Or that socialists were dangerous subversives and should be banned? He would, we hope (like all sane people), recognise the rights of individuals to rebel
against the majority when the majority violate the spirit of association, the spirit of freedom and equality which should give democracy its rationale. However, if he did then he
would have to also admit the correctness of the anarchist position.

So McNally fails to understand the rationale for democratic decision making -- it is not based on the idea that the majority is always right but that individual freedom requires
democracy to express and defend itself. By placing the collective above the individual, McNally undermines democracy and replaces it with little more than tyranny by the majority
-- or, more likely, those who claim to represent the majority. It also, ironically, places him on the wrong side within his own political tradition.

If we take McNally's comments seriously then we must conclude that those members of the German Social Democratic Party who opposed their party's role in supporting the First World
War were acting inappropriately. Rather than express their opposition to the war and act to stop it, according to McNally's "logic", they should have remained in their party (after
all, leaving the party meant ignoring the democratic decision of a collective group), accepted the democratic decision of the collective and supported the Imperialist slaughter in
the name of party democracy. Indeed, the minority of anti-war Social-Democratic representatives in the German Parliament did precisely that, refusing to vote against war credits in
1914 in the name of party discipline (presumably because, as good Marxists, they thought only "anarchists defend the 'liberty' of the private individual against the democratically
made decisions of collective groups", to use McNally's words). It took until 1915 for Karl Liebknecht to do the right thing. If quoting Trotsky is not too out of place: "Do not
fear to remain in a minority -- even a minority of one, like Liebknecht's one against a hundred and ten". [History of the Russian Revolution , vol. 1, p. 293] Common sense as well
as political principle indicates that Liebknecht's (belated) defence of socialist internationalism against the democratically made decision of the Social-Democratic representatives
(and wider party) was right -- and his principled dissent helped turn the tide against the jingoism of the majority.

Another obvious example is provided by Lenin who, just before the party's seizure of power in 1917, was so frustrated with the conservativism of his own party's central committee
that he, "by way of protest resigns from the Central Committee" after his "furious criticism" had no effect. Rather than abide by the rules of his own party and the majority of its
governing body "by announcing his resignation . . . Lenin obviously wanted to make it possible to free himself in case of need from internal discipline of the Central Committee" .
This meant the "withdrawing completely beyond the limits of party legality" and the threat of resigning gave him "greater freedom to develop his offensive along internal lines."
[Op. Cit., vol. 3, p. 131] Perhaps McNally is of the opinion that a private individual should not ignore the democratically made decisions of collective bodies -- unless the
individual in question is Lenin!

We are sure that McNally would reject the notion that Liebknecht and Lenin were wrong -- in these cases the rights of minorities (even of one) take precedence over the "democratic
decisions of collectives." This is because the majority is not always right and it is only through the dissent of individuals and minorities that the opinion of the majority can be
moved towards the right one. Thus his comments are fallacious.

Progress is determined by those who dissent and rebel against the status quo and the decisions of the majority. That is why anarchists support the right of dissent in self-managed
groups -- in fact, dissent, refusal, revolt by individuals and minorities is a key aspect of self-management. Given that Leninists do not support self-management (rather they,
at best, support the Lockean notion of electing a government as being "democracy") it is hardly surprising they, like Locke, view dissent as a danger and something to denounce.
Anarchists, on the other hand, recognising that self-management's (i.e. direct democracy's) rationale and base is in individual freedom, recognise and support the rights of
individuals to rebel against what they consider as unjust impositions (hence our recognition of the possibility of "the tyranny of the majority" -- see section I.5.6). As history
shows, the anarchist position is the correct one -- without rebellion, numerous minorities would never have improved their position. Indeed, McNally's comments is just a reflection
of the standard capitalist diatribe against strikers and protestors -- they do not need to protest, for they live in a "democracy."

So, yes, anarchists do support individual freedom to resist even democratically made decisions simply because democracy has to be based on individual liberty. Without the right of
dissent, democracy becomes a joke and little more than a numerical justification for tyranny (usually of the few who make up the so-called "democratically elected" government).
Thus McNally's latter claim that the "challenge is to restore to socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human freedom" seems farcical -- after all, he has
just admitted that Marxism aims to eliminate individual freedom in favour of "collective groups" (i.e. the government). Unless of course he means freedom for the abstraction
"humanity" rather than concrete freedom of the individual to govern themselves as individuals and as part of freely joined self-managed associations? For those who really seek to
restore to socialism its passionate concern for freedom the way it clear -- anarchism. Hence Murray Bookchin's comments:

    "Here is the nub of the problem [with] . . . Marxism . . . its perspectives are orientated not towards concrete, existential freedom, but towards an abstract freedom -- freedom
    for 'Society', for the 'Proletariat', for categories rather than for people." [Post Scarcity Anarchism, p. 148]

Anarchism, on the other hand, favours freedom for people and that implies two things -- individual freedom and self-management (direct democracy) in free associations. Any form
of "democracy" not based on individual freedom would be so contradictory as to be useless as a means to human freedom (and vice versa, any form of "individual freedom" -- such a
liberalism -- which denies self-management would be little more than a justification for minority rule and a denial of human freedom). Ultimately, McNally's attack on anarchism
fails simply because the majority is not always right and dissent a key to progress. That he forgets these basic facts of life indicates the depths to which Marxists will sink to
distort the truth about anarchism.

Not that those in the Bolshevik tradition have any problem with individuals ignoring the democratic decisions of collective groups. The Bolsheviks were very happy to let
individuals ignore and revoke the democratic decisions of collective groups -- as long as the individuals in question were the leaders of the Bolshevik Party. As the examples we
provide later (in section 8) indicate, leading lights in the Leninist tradition happily placed the rights of the party before the rights of working people to decide their own
fate. Thus McNally comments are strange in the extreme. Both anarchists and Leninists share a belief that individuals can and should have the right to ignore decisions made by
groups. However, Leninists seem to think only the government and leadership of the Party should have that right while anarchists think all should. Unlike the egalitarian support
for freedom and dissent for all anarchists favour, Leninists have an elitist support for the right of those in power to ignore the wishes of those they govern. Thus the history
of Marxists parties in power expose McNally as a hypocrite and as we argue in section 14, Leninist ideology provides the rationale for such action. Thus his attempt to portray
anarchism as "anti-democratic" is somewhat ironic.

McNally states that anarchists "oppose even the most democratic forms of collective organisation of social life. As the Canadian anarchist writer George Woodcock explains: 'Even
were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it . . . Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics . . .' That is to
say, anarchists reject any decision-making process in which the majority of people democratically determine the policies they will support."

It is perhaps understandable that McNally fails to provide a reference for Woodcock's quote given that the two parts come from different chapters of the pamphlet Anarchy or Chaos.
The first part ("Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it") appears in chapter 3 on page 20 while the second ("Anarchists do not advocate political
freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics") comes from chapter 15, page 108. In other words, McNally skips most of the pamphlet and ignores such trivial discussions as
anarchist support for organisation and so collective decision making, the links between anarchism and syndicalism (including a chapter explaining syndicalist ideas), revolutionary
anarchist support for collective property in the means of production and products (libertarian communism) as well as what was meant by "political freedom" and "democracy".

It is useful, then, to present what Woodcock actually argued in order to understand what anarchism stands for. First, it should be stressed that Woodcock is very specific about
what he meant by democracy: "for democracy puts forward the will of the majority as the supreme law, and declares that society must be governed, and the individual, whether he
agrees or not, be coerced by that will." Thus he is not discussing democratic decision making within free associations but rather the majority passing laws which all must obey.
As indicated above, this is not an unproblematic situation. Woodcock indicates this by noting the "laws against bigamy, abortion, homosexual practices, transvestism, and other
[so-called] sexual deviations, as well as the semi-official persecution of the unmarried mother and the bastard child, protect the institution of the family". Thus "laws protecting
the state [or the wishes of the majority] find their way into every sphere of life, and involve the prohibition of activities that, at first consideration, would appear to have no
bearing on the social structure." [Op. Cit., p. 20 and p. 107]

So it is essential to remember that democracy and freedom need not go hand-in-hand -- majorities can, and do, restrict the freedom of individuals in repressive and unjust ways.
So while democracy is a necessary condition for freedom it is not sufficient for, ultimately, the defining feature of democracy is not that the majority is always right but
rather that a ruling minority cannot be trusted to not abuse its position and power. This is why Woodcock states "Anarchists seek neither the good of a minority, nor the good of
the majority, but the good of all." He also notes that in so-called democracies it is usually the handful of people who make up the "democratically elected" government who make
the decisions and so it is "not even of the majority [who rule] but of the privileged few who forms its ruling class". [Op. Cit., p. 20] This awareness informs his comments on
political freedom which McNally shamefully ignores:

    "Political freedom the right to vote, trial by jury, freedom of speech and press -- does not constitute real freedom. Indeed it masks the unfree nature of the society from
    which it springs. The right to vote means the right to choose whether one will have a brewer or a lawyer for a master. It does not mean the right to do without a master. Trial
    by jury means the right to be judged by a handful of petty tradesmen, in accordance with the laws of a society based on property and class . . . Political freedom in a class
    society is virtually meaningless . . . it is strictly limited in the interests of the controlling class, and its availability is in relation to the class and economic position
    of the man concerned . . . Democratic freedoms, then, are relative to wealth. But this is not the full measure of the relationship. In reality the rich enjoy a far greater
    freedom than that . . . In a class society the ruling class are always free owing to their control of the means of production, of the money that in an acquisitive society
    is the way to all enjoyment. The ruled are not free because lack of control of production, and the benefits of money, liberal education, etc., proceeding there from . . .
    Moreover, political freedom in a class society (and all political societies are by definition class societies), is relative to the security of that society. The ruling class
    give just so much political freedom as it is worthwhile and possible to give to keep the people out of mischief . . . Political freedom, at its best, can only be limited, as it
    maintains the power of property, which, by conferring the right of exploitation, limits the freedom of the exploited, who are the majority of the population . . .

    "Political freedom is thus, in fact, an ingenious delusion, by which the governing classes give the people the comforting belief that they themselves have made the chains that
    bind them and that for this reason the chains are necessary and good. It gives men certain liberties that the ruling classes find it wise to concede as a cheap way of buying
    security, but its very retention of a political system, which means government, which means coercion, must in the end destroy political freedom itself.

    "Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics, freedom from the institution of government, freedom from coercion, freedom from
    the law's interference in the lives of individual men and women, freedom from economic domination and inequality . . . Only a society based on control from above has need of
    coercion. A society based on co-operation can do without oppression and restriction because it is based on the voluntary agreement between its members." [Op. Cit. pp. 105-8]

Ultimately, if you define political freedom as the freedom to elect a government then, obviously, anarchists do not aim for it because we aim to end all governments! As is clear
from the pamphlet McNally shamefully rips quotes from. The dishonesty is clear.

Given McNally's assertions about anarchism opposing collective property and being undemocratic, it is useful to also quote Woodcock's words on what anarchism is based on and what
it logically implies. He stresses that "few anarchists contend that absolute individual freedom is possible, or, indeed, desirable . . . man is a social being, depending for his
well-being on working and living together in society . . . The freedom anarchists seek, then, is a reciprocal freedom, a freedom of men and women recognising each other's rights, a
freedom based on justice." [Op. Cit., p. 105] Therefore:

    "Anarchism . . . is based on the concepts of freedom and justice, justice being that reciprocity of freedom without which no real individual freedom is possible. The social
    principles that follow from these concepts are mutual aid, or co-operation, and communism, or common ownership of the means of production . . . In the anarchist view these
    principles are expressed concretely in the administration of economic and functional affairs by voluntary associations of the workers for the purpose of running the factories
    and the farms and providing the necessary social services such as posts, drainage, roads, etc. Each industry would be administered by its own workers who are the most competent
    people for that purpose . . . who, having expert knowledge of their professions, are obviously better fitted to do this than politicians chosen according to the methods of
    parliamentary democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 91]

The means used to create such a society would be "prosecuting the economic struggle . . . an organisation on an economic basis which will embrace all the workers, according to
their industries and workplaces . . . The syndicate [union], organised and governed by the workers themselves . . . [also] contain [s] the germ of the functional organisation
upon which the new society can be built after the revolution.". Anarchists wish "that the people themselves take their destiny into their own hands and carry through the social
revolution." [ Op. Cit., p. 89]

All of which, to state the obvious, is at odds with McNally's claims about anarchism.

To summarise: Anarchists are not opposed to people in free associations democratically determining the policies they will support (see sections I.3.1 and I.5.1 for more details
on this). The minority can then decide to abide by the decision, protest against it or, if all else fails, to leave the association if they cannot tolerate the decisions being
made. What we do oppose is the assumption that the majority is always right and that (non-repressive or non-oppressive) minorities should submit to the decisions of the majority
no matter how wrong they are. We feel that history is on our side on this one -- it is only by the freedom to dissent, by the direct action of minorities to defend and extent
their freedoms that society progresses. We also feel that theory is on our side -- majority rule without individual and minority rights is a violation of the principle of freedom
and equality which democracy is said to be built on. Democracy should be an expression of individual liberty but in McNally's hands it is turned into bourgeois liberalism. Little
wonder Marxism has continually failed to produce a free society. It has no conception of the relationship of individual freedom to democracy and vice versa.

Finally, we must point out a slight irony in McNally's claim, namely that Marxists usually claim that they seek a society similar to that anarchists seek but have different means
to achieve it. In the words of Marx:

    "What all socialists understand by anarchy is this: once the aim of the proletarian movement, the abolition of classes, has been attained, the power of the State . . .
    disappears, and the functions of government are transformed into simple administrative functions." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 76]

Or, as the Communist Manifesto put it, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 491] So, Marxists and anarchists
seek the same society, one of individual freedom which means that McNally's comments about anarchism also apply (once the state "withers away", which it never will) to Marxism.
But, of course, McNally fails to mention this aspect of Marxism and its conflict with anarchism -- but, then, he fails to discuss what anarchism actually stands for nor does he
present an accurate account of its views of democracy and democratic decision making.

8. Are Leninists in favour of democracy?

McNally's attack on anarchism for being anti-democratic, authoritarian and elitist is somewhat ironic given that the Leninist tradition he places himself in did destroy democracy
during the Russian Revolution -- whether in the soviet, the workplace, the union or the military -- and replaced it with party dictatorship. This means that his attack on anarchism
can be turned back on his own politics, with much more justification and evidence.

We need to understand the importance of comparing the rhetoric of Bolshevism to its reality as we can have repeated pronouncements about "democracy" made while, at the same time,
the necessity of party dictatorship is both being practised and advocated. Thus Lenin repeatedly contrasted the higher form of democracy expressed by the soviets to bourgeois
democracy. In his in 1918 polemic against leading Social-Democrat Karl Kautsky who was accusing the Bolsheviks of being undemocratic, Lenin argued that the "only view that
corresponds to Marxism" was expounded by Plekhanov (the father of Russian Marxism) at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party in 1903, namely "in the revolution
the proletariat would, if necessary, disenfranchise the capitalists and disperse any parliament that was found to be counter-revolutionary." [Collected Works, vol. 28, p. 280]
Which raises the obvious question, found to be counter-revolutionary by whom? The proletariat? No, according to Plekhanov it was the party:

    "Every democratic principle must be considered not by itself, abstractly, but in relation to . . . the success of the revolution [as this] is the highest law. And if the
    success of the revolution demands a temporary limitation on the working of this or that democratic principle, then it would be criminal to refrain from such a limitation . . .
    the principle of universal suffrage must be considered from the point of view of what I have designated the fundamental principle of democracy. It is hypothetically possible
    that we might . . . speak out against universal suffrage . . . If in a burst of revolutionary enthusiasm the people chose a very fine parliament then we would be bound to make
    it a long parliament; and if the elections turned out unsuccessfully, then we would have to try to disperse it. [quoted by Samuel H. Baron, Plekhanov: The Father of Russian
    Marxism, p. 242]

As we will discover, the dispersing of elected bodies by the party was not limited to bourgeois Parliaments: soviets were also subject to this policy. Perhaps this is unsurprising,
given that before seizing power Lenin had repeatedly equated the power of the Bolsheviks with that of the proletariat. Thus "Bolshevik power" was "one and the same thing" as
"proletarian revolutionary power" and so the Second All-Russian Congress "gave a majority to the Bolshevik Party and put it in power." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 413 and p. 419]
While problematic (it substitutes the party for the class), it could be argued that as the party was supported by the majority of workers (but not peasants) then the Bolshevik
government was democratic. Which is true, in the limited bourgeois sense. The question is what would happen if the workers turned against the party -- would it give up its power as
required by a movement committed to democracy? Unfortunately for McNally, the answer was: no.

Before discussing this, we must present some context and discuss the Bolshevik regime from the democratic perspective of one-person, one-vote. Before seizing power, Lenin protested
that the Bolsheviks "must pass a resolution demanding equal suffrage (both in the Soviets and at trade union congresses), branding the slightest departure from equality as a fraud
. . . We cannot tolerate a fraud of democracy if we call ourselves 'democrats'. We are not democrats but unprincipled people if we tolerate this!!" [Collected Works, vol. 25, p.
304] After winning around 25% of the votes in the elections to the Constituent Assembly he was happy with a Soviet Constitution which saw the All-Russian Congress of Soviets being
composed of representatives of urban soviets (one delegate for 25,000 voters) and of representatives of the rural congresses of soviets (one delegate for 125,000 inhabitants). In
other words, a worker's vote was 5 times more important than a peasant's vote. That this ensured a Bolshevik majority in the Third and Fourth All-Russian Congresses may explain
this embrace of unequal suffrage in 1918 after the votes in the Constituent Assembly had been counted.

Given that the Bolsheviks disbanded the Constituent Assembly in spite of it being elected by universal suffrage (i.e., by democracy) McNally would, undoubtedly, argue -- as
Lenin did -- that soviet democracy was much superior. Ignoring the awkward issue of unequal suffrage between workers and peasants, the fact is that the Bolsheviks also disbanded
soviets which elected non-Bolshevik majorities. Martov, the leader of the left-Mensheviks, recounted in June 1918 how in those "places where we were in the majority, the soviets
will be liquidated". When "workers demanded new elections" the demands were "stubbornly resisted" and the issue "escalated to workers' strikes and the suppression of workers'
demonstrations by armed forces". If the protests succeeded, then elections resulted in "a majority to the Mensheviks and SRs" and in those cases Bolshevik Military Revolutionary
Councils ensured "the soviets were disbanded by armed force or the opposition delegates were expelled as 'counter-revolutionaries' from the soviets" (although "Bolshevik
investigators themselves could not succeed in implicating even one Menshevik in the conspiracy trials"). The disbanding of soviets was "applied to the uzed congresses of peasant
soviets." ["Iulii Martov's Letter to A.N. Stein", pp. 78-82, The Structure of Soviet History, Ronald Grigor Suny (ed.), p. 78] Martov gave amongst many the example of Tula and a
leading Bolshevik there informed his Party's Central Committee in early 1918 about the means being used there:

    "After the transfer of power to the soviet, a rapid about-face began in the mood of the workers. The Bolshevik deputies began to be recalled one after another, and soon the
    general situation took on a rather unhappy appearance. Despite the fact that there was a schism among the SRs, and the Left SRs were with us, our situation became shakier with
    each passing day. We were forced to block new elections to the soviet and even not to recognise them where they had taken place not in our favour." [quoted by Scott Smith, "The
    Socialists-Revolutionaries and the Dilemma of Civil War", pp. 83-104, The Bolsheviks In Russian Society, Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), p. 87]

"The sum of this evidence from around the country," summarises one historian, "makes clear that the majority of Russian workers were hostile to the Bolsheviks by the spring of 1918
. . . the Bolsheviks simply dissolved opposition-controlled soviets, disregarded workers' opinions, and cracked down brutally on such manifestations of discontent as strikes."
[Smith, Op. Cit., p. 94] This meant disbanding soviets which were elected with the wrong majority and so in response to the "great Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during
the spring and summer of 1918 "Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections." For example, in the city of Izhevsk in "the May election [to the
soviet] the Mensheviks and SRs won a majority" and the following month "these two parties also won a majority of the executive committee of the soviet. At this point, the local
Bolshevik leadership refused to give up power" and by the use of the military "abrogated the results of the May and June elections and arrested the SR and Menshevik members of the
soviet and its executive committee." [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, pp. 23-4]

As we summarise in section H.6.1, the Bolsheviks applied many tactics to secure their power: soviet elections were delayed, the soviets themselves were packed with their
representatives to secure their majority (so making direct election from the workplace irrelevant) and, when all else failed, the soviets themselves were simply, as noted,
disbanded. This applied at the national level as well, and "electoral fraud gave the Bolsheviks a huge majority of congress delegates" for the fifth All-Russian Soviet Congress in
July 1918. The "number of legitimately elected Left SR delegates was roughly equal to that of the Bolsheviks." The Left-SRs expected a majority but did not include "roughly 399
Bolsheviks delegates whose right to be seated was challenged by the Left SR minority in the congress's credentials commission." Without these dubious delegates, the Left SRs and SR
Maximalists would have outnumbered the Bolsheviks by around 30 delegates. This ensured "the Bolshevik's successful fabrication of a large majority in the Fifth All-Russian Congress
of Soviets." [Alexander Rabinowitch, The Bolsheviks in Power, p. 396, p. 288, p. 442 and p. 308]

This was reflected in Lenin's 1917 argument that the "Bolsheviks have no right to await the Congress of Soviets. They ought to seize the power right now" [quoted by Trotsky, The
History of the Russian Revolution, vol. 3, pp. 132-2] The important thing was party power and the soviets were seen as only a means to that end and so perhaps their fate once the
Bolsheviks had reached their goal is unsurprising. Hence we see Lenin, in his polemic against Kautsky, pointing with no apparent concerns to the fact that "97 per cent of the total
number of delegates [to the Sixth All-Russian Soviet Congress] were Bolsheviks" as an example of his party's popular support! [Collected Works, vol. 28, p. 303] It should be noted
that the delegates to the congress were elected not by workers and peasants but rather by the appropriate soviet body below it. In other words, Bolshevik gerrymandered and packed
soviets elected Bolsheviks to the national congress.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the reality of their regime, Bolshevik rhetoric started to change. By the end of 1918 the necessity of party dictatorship started to appear in party
material and, as Victor Serge noted in the 1930s, "the degeneration of Bolshevism" was apparent by that time "since at the start of 1919 I was horrified to read an article by
Zinoviev . . . on the monopoly of the party in power". [The Serge-Trotsky Papers, p. 188] It must be stressed that Serge's horror was well hidden and, as noted in section H.1.2 he
joined the Bolsheviks and publicly defended this monopoly of power as a necessity of revolution. Lenin admitted the reality in 1919:

    "When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and . . . . a united Socialist front is proposed, we say, 'Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party!
    This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position . . .'" [Op. Cit., vol. 29, p. 535]

Not only did the Bolsheviks not shift from that position, they recommended this position to the world revolutionary movement at the Second Congress of the Second International in
1920. In the words of Zinoviev:

    "Today, people like Kautsky come along and say that in Russia you do not have the dictatorship of the working class but the dictatorship of the party. They think this is
    a reproach against us. Not in the least! We have a dictatorship of the working class and that is precisely why we also have a dictatorship of the Communist Party. The
    dictatorship of the Communist Party is only a function, an attribute, an expression of the dictatorship of the working class . . . the dictatorship of the proletariat is at the
    same time the dictatorship of the Communist Party." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]

"We must have a state organisation" he argued, "and only the party can direct it, because a state political organisation is one that encompasses the best working-class elements
of the entire country." [Op. Cit., p. 154] Elsewhere that year he argued that "soviet rule in Russia could not have been maintained for three years -- not even three weeks --
without the iron dictatorship of the Communist Party. Any class conscious worker must understand that the dictatorship of the working class can be achieved only by the dictatorship
of its vanguard, i.e., by the Communist Party . . . All questions of economic reconstruction, military organisation, education, food supply -- all these questions, on which the
fate of the proletarian revolution depends absolutely, are decided in Russia before all other matters and mostly in the framework of the party organisations . . . Control by
the party over soviet organs, over the trade unions, is the single durable guarantee that any measures taken will serve not special interests, but the interests of the entire
proletariat." [quoted by Oskar Anweiler, The Soviets, pp. 239-40] In short: "The chief conclusion of the proletarian revolution is the need for an iron, organised and monolithic
Party." [Zinoviev, quoted by Robert Service, The Bolshevik Party in Revolution, p. 144] Lenin dismissed the notion that workers could govern themselves:

    "In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial workers . . . What
    happens is that the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . the dictatorship of
    the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most
    backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . . that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise
    proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the essentials of transition from
    capitalism to communism . . . for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation." [Collected Works, vol. 32, pp. 20-1]

This, of course, did not stop the Bolsheviks also claiming their regime was far more democratic than any other. In 1920, Zinoviev as head of the Communist International wrote
a letter to the Industrial Workers of the World, a revolutionary labour union, which stated that the "Russian Soviet Republic . . . is the most highly centralised government
that exists. It is also the most democratic government in history. For all the organs of government are in constant touch with the working masses, and constantly sensitive to
their will." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 2, p. 928] Lenin, in his diatribe against Left-Wing Communism made a similar claim and proclaimed the
soviets "democratic institutions, the like of which even the best democratic republics of the bourgeois have never known" while also suggesting that it was "ridiculously absurd,
and stupid" to make "a contrast, in general, between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the leaders." He also pointed to "non-Party workers' and peasants'
conferences" as means by which the party secured its rule and so the Bolsheviks would have to "support, develop and extend" non-Party conferences "to be able to observe the temper
of the masses, come closer to them, meet their requirements, promote the best among them to state posts". [The Lenin Anthology, p. 573] Yet if the soviets were so democratic,
then why were the non-Party Congresses needed at all? Perhaps because "the dictatorship of the leaders" is not the same as "dictatorship of the masses" and so the Soviets were
irrelevant due to the party dictatorship?

Perhaps unsurprisingly given the fate of the soviets in 1918, the Bolsheviks disbanded these "non-Party" conferences because "[d]uring the disturbances" of late 1920, "they
provided an effective platform for criticism of Bolshevik policies." Their frequency was decreased and they "were discontinued soon afterward." [Richard Sakwa, Soviet Communists in
Power, p. 203] Lenin summarised the reasons for this policy:

    "Non-Party conferences are not a fetish. They are valuable if they help us to come closer to the impassive masses -- the millions of working people still outside politics. They
    are harmful if they provide a platform for the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries masquerading as 'non-party' men. They are helping the mutinies, and the whiteguards. The
    place for Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, avowed or in non-party guise, is not at a non-Party conference but in prison . . . We can and must find other methods of
    testing the mood of the masses and coming closer to them. We suggest that those who want to play the parliamentary, constituent assembly and non-Party conference game, should
    go abroad . . . " [Op. Cit., vol. 32, p. 362]

In other words, the conferences were used by the proletariat to express its opinions and these were found to be lacking in the eyes of its vanguard. Like soviet democracy, they
threatened the rule of the party and as Lenin suggested in 1920 "[w]hoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat
(especially during its dictatorship) is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 570] So any conflict between the vanguard and the
proletariat would, by this logic, necessitates the victory of the former over the latter -- in the latter's interests, of course. As Trotsky put it in 1921:

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

So, politically, the Bolsheviks systematically disbanded democratic institutions -- whether bourgeois (the Constituent Assembly) or proletarian (the soviets and non-Party
Conferences). They proclaimed to the world the necessity of party dictatorship and how mass working class organisations could not exercise the so-called dictatorship of the
proletariat. In March 1923 the Central Committee of the Communist Party, in a statement issued to mark the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Party, summarised the lessons
gained from the Russian revolution: "the party of the Bolsheviks proved able to stand out fearlessly against the vacillations within its own class, vacillations which, with the
slightest weakness in the vanguard, could turn into an unprecedented defeat for the proletariat." Vacillations, of course, are expressed by workers' democracy. Little wonder the
statement rejects it: "The dictatorship of the working class finds its expression in the dictatorship of the party." ["To the Workers of the USSR" in G. Zinoviev, History of the
Bolshevik Party, p. 213 and p. 214]

Bolshevik authoritarianism, needless to say, was not limited to the political regime. In the workplace, they replaced workers' economic democracy with "one-man management" selected
from above, by the state. These "individual executives" would have "dictatorial powers (or 'unlimited' powers)" as there was "absolutely no contradiction in principle between
Soviet (that is, socialist) democracy and the exercise of dictatorial powers by individuals." The applied also at the national level for "our task is to study the state capitalism
of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not to shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it." [Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 267, p. 268 and p.
340] He suggested dictatorial power was universal fact of all revolutions:

    "in the history of revolutionary movements the dictatorship of individuals was very often the expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of the revolutionary
    classes has been shown by the irrefutable experience of history." [Op. Cit., p. 267]

It is churlish, but essential, to note that previous revolutionary movements had transformed one form of class society into another and so we must note, as well as refuting
McNally's claim that Leninism is a democratic tradition, Lenin's comments display a distinct confusion over the nature of a social revolution (rather than a political one). Yes,
previous revolutions may have utilised the dictatorship of individuals but these revolutions have been revolutions from one class system to another. The "revolutionary" classes in
question were minority classes and so elite rule would not in any way undermine their class nature. Not so with a socialist revolution which must be based on mass participation (in
every aspect of society, economic, political, social) if it is too achieve its goals -- namely a classless society. Little wonder, with such theoretical confusion, that the Russian
revolution ended in Stalinism -- the means used determined the ends. Unsurprisingly enough, the Bolshevik imposition of one-management simply transformed private-capitalism into
state-capitalism, that is one form of class society into another (see section H.3.13). After the end of the Civil War Lenin summarised his position: "Industry is indispensable,
democracy is not. Industrial democracy breeds some utterly false ideas." [Op. Cit., vol. 32, p. 27]

This system of state-appointed "one-man" managers armed with "dictatorial" powers was not considered as opposed to socialism, as McNally implies. Lenin stressed in 1919 that the
"organisation of the communist activity of the proletariat and the entire policy of the Communists have new acquired a final, lasting form." [Op. Cit., vol. 30, p. 144] Moreover,
after the end of the civil war he combated the idea of workers' control as (rightly!) a syndicalist and anarchist deviation within the party at odds with Marxism:

    "Syndicalism hands over to the mass of non-Party workers . . . the management of their industries . . . thereby making the Party superfluous. . . Why have a Party, if
    industrial management is to be appointed . . . by trade unions nine-tenths of whose members are non-Party workers?" [Op. Cit. , vol. 32, p. 50]

He went so far as to admit that he thought "the syndicalist deviation" (i.e., giving the proletariat economic democracy, the power to elect their own workplace managers and
economic conferences) "leads to the collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat". [Op. Cit., p. 86] This was a theme to which he repeatedly returned:

    "Does every worker know how to run the state? . . . this is not true . . . If we say that it is not the Party but the trade unions that put up the candidates and administrate,
    it may sound very democratic . . . It will be fatal for the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . To govern you need an army of steeled revolutionary Communists. We have it,
    and it is called the Party. All this syndicalist nonsense about mandatory nominations of producers must go into the wastepaper basket. To proceed on those lines would mean
    thrusting the Party aside and making the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia impossible." [Op. Cit., pp. 61-2]

In short, the economic relations favoured by the Bolsheviks were identical to that of capitalism except that the boss was replaced by a state-appointed bureaucrat,
private-capitalism by state-capitalism (an awkward fact McNally cannot bring himself to mention, never mind admit to). "In the shops where one-man management (Lenin's own
preference) replaced collegial management," notes Diane Koenker, "workers faced the same kinds of authoritarian management they thought existed only under capitalism." The "overall
management of industry in 1921 was no more democratic than it had been in 1914; indeed, it was much more highly centralised, hierarchical, and bureaucratic." [Labour Relations in
Socialist Russia, p. 177 and p. 190]

Needless to say, the Bolsheviks also combated independent trade unions with the same methods. As one historian summarises, "Soviets and trade unions with non-Bolshevik majorities,
and there was a definite revival in the electoral fortunes of the opposition in the spring of 1918, were dispersed" and by the "beginning of 1920 non-Bolshevik controlled trade
union organisations no longer existed at the national level". [Jonathan Aves, "The Demise of Non-Bolshevik Trade Unionism in Moscow: 1920-21", pp. 101-33, Revolutionary Russia,
vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 101-2 and p. 103] By the end of 1920, the Bolsheviks had broken the both Menshevik-influenced printers and anarchist-influenced bakers union, with the offices
of the former "occupied by soldiers. Eleven members of the [union] board where arrested along with twenty-nine members of the Council of Representatives, factory committees and
ordinary unionists . . . five were also members of the Moscow soviet. After being held without trial most were sentenced to terms between six months and two years in prison. The
disbandment was approved by the plenum of the Moscow trade union council" which "also voted to disband the bakers' section. The leading anarchist members of the section . . . and
. . . an SR Maximalist . . . and two other members . . . were barred from office and arrested to stand trial." [Jonathan Aves, Workers Against Lenin , pp. 68-9] In May 1921, to
present another example, the All-Russian Congress of the Metalworkers' Union met and the "Central Committee of the [Communist] Party handed down to the Party faction in the union
a list of recommended candidates for union (sic!) leadership. The metalworkers' delegates voted down the list, as did the Party faction in the union . . . The Central Committee of
the Party disregarded every one of the votes and appointed a Metalworkers' Committee of its own. So much for 'elected and revocable delegates.' Elected by the union rank and file
and revocable by the Party leadership!" [M. Brinton, "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", For Workers' Power, , p. 375] The same year also saw the Bolshevik disperse provincial
trade unions conferences in Vologda and Vitebsk "because they had anti-communist majorities." [Aves, Op. Cit., p. 176]

A similar onslaught by the party against democracy also occurred in the armed forces. Trotsky simply abolished the soldier's committees and elected officers in early 1918, stating
that "the principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree." This destruction of military democracy
was compared to the concurrent push by the Bolsheviks to introduce "one-man" management in production, as workplace democracy "is not the last word in the economic constructive
work of the proletariat". The "next step must consist in self-limitation of the collegiate principle" and its replacement by "[p] olitical collegiate control by the Soviets",
i.e. the state control Lenin had repeatedly advocated in 1917. Moreover "for executive functions we must appoint technical specialists." He ironically called this the working
class "throwing off the one-man management principles of its masters of yesterday" and failed to recognise it was imposing the one-man management principles of new masters. As
with Lenin, the destruction of workers' power at the point of production was of little concern for what mattered was that "with power in our hands, we, the representatives of the
working class" would introduce socialism. ["Work, Discipline, and Order to save the Socialist Soviet Republic", How the Revolution Armed, vol. 1, p. 47, p. 37 and p. 38]

Thus the Bolshevik tradition clearly placed the power of the party above the ability of working people to elect their own representatives, managers and officer. And McNally claims
that his tradition aims at "workers' power" and a "direct and active democracy"!

Of course McNally tries to blame the destruction of democracy in Russia on the Civil War: "By 1920, the very face of Russia had changed. Workers' democracy, in the meaningful
sense of the term, had disappeared -- as had most of the working class through death or retreat to the countryside." This meant the rise of Stalinism for "[a]s workers' democracy
disintegrated, a new bureaucracy rose to power." However, this is hard to accept, given that the undermining of democracy began before the civil war started and continued after it
had finished (for example, the onslaught on soviet democracy and attempts to impose one-man management in the workplace and armed forces predate the start of the civil war at the
end of May 1918). Moreover, as we indicate in section 13, the Bolshevik state was marked by bureaucracy from the start.

Both these developments did not occur by accident, they were due to the nature of Bolshevik ideology and the kind of centralised structures it favoured. Trotsky is typical. In
April 1918 he argued that once elected the government was to be given total power to make decisions and appoint people as required as it is "better able to judge in the matter
than" the masses. The sovereign people were expected to simply obey their public servants until such time as they "dismiss that government and appoint another." Trotsky raised the
question of whether it was possible for the government to act "against the interests of the labouring and peasant masses?" And answered no! Yet it is obvious that Trotsky's claim
that "there can be no antagonism between the government and the mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between the administration of the union and the general assembly
of its members" is just nonsense. [Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 113] The history of trade unionism is full of examples of committees betraying their membership. Needless to say, the
subsequent history Lenin's government showed that there can be "antagonism" between rulers and ruled and that appointments are always a key way to further elite interests. Needless
to say, the notion that the party leaders are "better able to judge in the matter than" has its roots in Lenin's vanguardism, as discussed in section 11.

McNally's claim that the working class had been destroyed by the civil war is equally flawed and cannot explain the fact that attempts by working class people to express themselves
were systematically undermined by the Bolshevik party. Nor does the notion of a "disappeared" working class make much sense when "in the early part of 1921, a spontaneous strike
movement . . . took place in the industrial centres of European Russia" and strikes involving around 43 000 per year took place between 1921 and 1925. [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit., p.
188 and p. 88] As we show in section H.6.3, while the number of workers did decrease from 1918 to 1921, there remained substantial numbers who were able to and did take collective
action before, during and after the civil war. So rather than there being objective reasons for the lack of democracy under Lenin we can suggest political reasons -- the awareness
that, given the choice, the Russian working class would have preferred someone else in power. Indeed, McNally's argument can be traced back to Lenin who formulated it "to justify a
political clamp-down" in the face of rising working class protest rather than its lack: "As discontent amongst workers became more and more difficult to ignore, Lenin . . . began
to argue that the consciousness of the working class had deteriorated . . . workers had become 'declassed.'" However, there "is little evidence to suggest that the demands that
workers made at the end of 1920 . . . represented a fundamental change in aspirations since 1917." [Aves, Op. Cit., p. 18, p. 90 and p. 91]

Also, we must point out a certain duplicity in McNally's comments that Stalinism can be explained purely by the terrible civil war Russia experienced. After all, Lenin himself
before seizing power mocked those who opposed revolution because "the situation is exceptionally complicated" and argued that "the development of the revolution itself always
creates an exceptionally complicated situation" and that it was an "incredibly complicated and painful process." In fact, it was "the most intense, furious, desperate class
war and civil war. Not a single great revolution in history has taken place without civil war. And only a 'man in a muffler' can think that civil war is conceivable without an
'exceptionally complicated situation.'" "If the situation were not exceptionally complicated there would be no revolution." [ Op. Cit., vol. 26, pp. 118-9] Thus McNally's assertion
that for "the germ cell of socialism to grow [in Russia], it required several essential ingredients. One was peace. The new workers' state could not establish a thriving democracy
so long as it was forced to raise an army and wage war to defend itself" is simply incredible. It also raises an important question with regards Leninist ideas: if Bolshevik
politics and its organisational form cannot survive during a period of disruption and complicated circumstances (i.e., a revolution) then it is clearly a theory to be avoided at
all costs.

The leading Bolsheviks all argued that the specific problems their latter day followers blame for their authoritarianism were natural results of any revolution and, consequently,
unavoidable. In addition, there is a slight irony in this standard but flawed excuse for Bolshevik authoritarianism as Leninists like to suggest that anarchists do not recognise
the possibility of counter-revolution and so reject the idea of defending a revolution. As we discuss in section H.2.1, this is simply untrue -- the anarchist rejection of
"the dictatorship of the proletariat" has nothing to do with defending revolution. As Bakunin stressed, "the sole means of opposing the reactionary forces of the state" was
the "organising of the revolutionary force of the people." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 156] So given that Leninists mock anarchists for their supposed naivety over the dangers
of counter-revolution, it seems ironic that McNally uses what he is supposed to consider an inevitable aspect of revolution to explain (excuse would be the better word) the
degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution. Long after 1917, Lenin repeated his earlier comments by stating "history teaches us that no big question has ever been settled and no
revolution accomplished without a series of wars." [Op. Cit., vol. 31, p. 494] He was adamant that "were it not for this iron rule of the workers, of this workers' vanguard, we
should not have been able to hold out for two months, let alone two years". [Op. Cit., vol. 30, p. 498]

Simply put, if counter-revolution is considered inevitable by your ideology then explaining Bolshevik authoritarianism by it is unconvincing -- particularly if that
authoritarianism started before the start of the civil war at the end of May 1918 and continued after its end. So "the effective conclusion of the Civil War at the beginning
of 1920 was followed by a more determined and comprehensive attempt to apply these so-called War Communism policies rather than their relaxation" and so the "apogee of the War
Communism economy occurred after the Civil War was effectively over." With the fighting over Lenin "forcefully raised the introduction of one-man management . . . Often commissars
fresh from the Red Army were drafted into management positions in the factories." By the autumn of 1920, one-man management was in 82% of surveyed workplaces. This "intensification
of War Communism labour policies would not have been a significant development if they had continued to be applied in the same haphazard manner as in 1919, but in early 1920 the
Communist Party leadership was no longer distracted by the Civil War from concentrating its thoughts and efforts on the formulation and implementation of its labour policies."
While the " experience of the Civil War was one factor predisposing communists towards applying military methods" to the economy in early 1920, "ideological considerations were
also important." [Jonathan Aves, Workers Against Lenin, p. 2, p. 17, p. 15, p. 30, p. 17 and p. 11] Unsurprisingly, then, the defeat of Wrangel in November 1920 saw no changes in
Bolshevik policy nor the Bolshevik use of coercion against workers and peasants calling and protesting for the re-introduction of freedom and democracy.

So there is a continuity between Bolshevik policies before, during and after the civil war which McNally does not mention. Take one-man management, for example. This was advocated
by Lenin before the civil war started and when he looked back at this time from April 1920, he reiterated his position ( "Dictatorial powers and one-man management are not
contradictory to socialist democracy") while also stressing that this was not forced upon the Bolsheviks by civil war. It was time to build socialism and the "whole attention of
the Communist Party and the Soviet government is centred on peaceful economic development, on problems of the dictatorship and of one-man management". "When we tackled them for the
first time in 1918, there was no civil war and no experience to speak of" and so it was "not only experience" of civil war, argued Lenin "but something more profound . . . that has
induced us now, as it did two years ago, to concentrate all our attention on labour discipline." Lenin stressed that we "need more discipline, more individual authority and more
dictatorship". [Collected Works, vol. 30, p. 503, p. 504 and p. 514]

The same can be said of the arguments for party dictatorship, which were raised at the Second Congress of the Communist International and aimed to influence the revolutionary
movement across the globe. Trotsky wrote his infamous Terrorism and Communism as part of this debate between socialists and, to quote syndicalist-turned-Bolshevik Alfred Rosmer, it
"dealt with the theoretical and practical problems posed by the revolution, the civil war and the building of the new society" and it "formed a sort of introduction and commentary
on the Theses prepared for the Congress." As we show in section 15, this work acknowledged that party dictatorship was a necessity of a successful revolution, the need for one-man
management as well as the militarisation of labour (needless to say, we also show how -- McNally's claims notwithstanding -- Trotsky did not reject these positions in the 1920s and
1930s). In addition, the congress took place in July 1920 when the civil war appeared to have been won, with Rosmer recalling that when he had arrived in "June 1920" in Russia "the
civil war was virtually at an end" for "[a]fter the triple blow struck at the interventionist forces, after the destruction of Kolchak, Yudenich and Denikin, the counter-revolution
was defeated." [Lenin's Moscow, p. 58, p. 65, p. 128 and p. 101]

To stress the point, Lenin, Zinoviev and Trotsky were all clearly arguing for party power, not workers' power, and that party dictatorship is inevitable in every revolution.
This position was not put in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution but rather were expressed in universal terms and unsurprisingly, then "[f]rom the first days of
Bolshevik power there was only a weak correlation between the extent of 'peace' and the mildness or severity of Bolshevik rule, between the intensity of the war and the intensity
of proto-war communist measures . . . Considered in ideological terms there was little to distinguish the 'breathing space' (April-May 1918) from the war communism that followed."
Unsurprisingly, then, "the breathing space of the first months of 1920 after the victories over Kolchak and Denikin . . . saw their intensification and the militarisation of
labour" and, in fact, "no serious attempt was made to review the aptness of war communist policies." Ideology "constantly impinged on the choices made at various points of the
civil war . . . Bolshevik authoritarianism cannot be ascribed simply to the Tsarist legacy or to adverse circumstances." [Richard Sakwa, Soviet Communists in Power, p. 24, p. 27
and p. 30]

As we discuss in section H.6.2, Bolshevik ideology and the decisions it inspired helped make the difficult circumstances the revolution was facing worse. Their centralised vision
of socialism could not help but produce economic mismanagement as well as a new class of bureaucrats. The inherent tendencies of Bolshevism were revealed by the civil war, a war
which only accelerated the development of what was implicit (and, often, not so implicit) in Bolshevik ideology and its vision of socialism, the state and the role of the party.
Therefore, in practice, Leninism has proven to be profoundly anti-democratic. In terms of McNally's argument, to not discuss in detail Bolshevik authoritarianism and blame it on
the impact of the civil war is dishonest, particularly given the awkward fact that their anti-democratic activities started before its beginning at the end of May 1918.

Bolshevik authoritarianism had two main causes.

First, the obvious change in its social position -- it became part of the state and, as a result, viewed society -- and the working class -- from above, as rulers. So as Marxism
is "centralist" and aims for "conscious, democratic, proletarian centralism" it will inevitably lead to a new class system being created. [The Lenin Anthology, p. 348] This is not
necessarily because Leninists seek dictatorship for themselves (although they do aim for party power -- see section H.3.11) but rather it is because of the nature of the state
machine. In the words of Murray Bookchin:

    "Anarchist critics of Marx pointed out with considerable effect that any system of representation would become a statist interest in its own right, one 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 . . .

    "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", pp. 14-17, Black Flag, no. 226, pp. 16-7]

As we discuss in section H.3.9, anarchists argue that the state cannot be considered as simply an instrument of economic class but, rather, has interests of its own. As such,
concentrations of political power will produce a new class system and become independent of the masses of people and even of economically dominant classes like capitalists. This is
why anarchists stress direct democracy (self-management) in free federations of free associations. It is the only way to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people and is
not turned into an alien power above them. Thus Marxist support for statist forms of organisation will inevitably undermine the liberatory nature of the revolution. As we note in
section 14, that is anarchists have long argued for the need for social transformation "from below".

Second, as indicated in section H.5, their idea of the party being the "vanguard" of the working class, combined with its desire for centralised power, makes the dictatorship
of the party over the proletariat inevitable. Lenin's belief that working class people could not liberate themselves explains his continual emphasis on representative democracy
and centralism as well as the Bolshevik's easy slide into both practicing and advocating party dictatorship -- simply put, the party must have power over the working class as
that class could not be trusted to make the right decisions (i.e. know what its "real" interests were). At best they would be allowed to vote for the government, but even this
right could be removed if they voted for the wrong people as shown above. For Leninists, revolutionary consciousness is not generated by working class self-activity in the class
struggle, but is embodied in the party ("Since there can there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the process of their
movement the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology" [Lenin, The Essential Works of Lenin, 82]). The conclusions of this position are obvious: the important issues
facing the working class are to be determined not by the workers ourselves, but by the leadership of the party, who are the (self-appointed) "vanguard of the proletariat".

The nature of the relationship between the party and the working class is clear. We remain incapable of achieving revolutionary consciousness and have to be led by the vanguard --
using state coercion, if need be. As Lenin argued:

    "it must he made clear that democracy under the Soviet system does not contradict dictatorship . . . Unity of will must not be a catchword, a symbol. We demand it in practice.
    This is how unity of will was expressed during the [civil] war -- anybody who placed his own interests (or the interests of his village or group) above the common interests,
    was branded as a self-seeker and was shot; this was justified by the moral consciousness of the working class that it must achieve victory. We spoke about these shootings
    openly; we said that we made no secret of coercion, because we realised that we could not emerge from the old society without resorting to compulsion as far as the backward
    section of the proletariat was concerned . . ." [Op. Cit., vol. 30 pp. 509-10]

This raises numerous questions, the most obvious is who (which individual or group) decides which is and is not in the common interests? Another is, what is to stop this pivileged
person or group placing their interests above "the common interests" and repressing those who object in the name of those very same "common interests"? Moreover, as everyone is
-- by definition! -- "backward" in comparison to the vanguard in its own eyes, Lenin's position ensures that "compulsion" can be used by the party against all who it considers an
danger to its power -- including the proletariat it claims to be the ruling class. Hence the destruction of soviet, workplace, union and armed forces democracy and, of course, the
creation of bodies of armed men (such as the political police, the Cheka) separate from the people (i.e., a state in the normal sense of the word -- see section H.3.8).

In short, the notion that dictatorship does not contradict democracy is simply nonsense -- self-serving nonsense, of course -- and which could have no other impact than a negative
one of socialism. What would stop, say, a Stalin proclaiming that his regime was simply using coercion against the backward sections of the masses in the common interest and
that those who objected were placing their own interests above it? It is the crudest form of idealism to hope that the socialist principles of the ruling elite will overcome the
pressures of their position in the social hierarchy and, unsurprisingly, it did not happen.

"If we perish", Lenin said privately to Trotsky in 1921, "it is all the more important to preserve our ideological line and give a lesson to our continuators. This should never
be forgotten, even in hopeless circumstances". [quoted by Brinton, "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", For Workers' Power, p. 372] Hence the comments made by Zinoviev at the
Second Congress of the Communist International, Trotsky in Terrorism and Communism and Lenin in innumerable speeches and articles. Sadly for McNally's case, the lesson that the
Bolsheviks wanted to give to the world revolutionary movement was not the importance of freedom and democracy but rather that party dictatorship and one-man management were
necessary to achieve a successful revolution and that an economic regime which was obvious state-capitalism was socialism. Little wonder Leninists had so much difficulty in
recognising Stalinism was a new class system -- to do so would have been to raise awkward questions about the similar -- if less brutal -- regime under Lenin and Trotsky.

To conclude, both anarchism and Leninism have a critical position on democracy. Lenin argued that "formal democracy must be subordinate to the revolutionary interest" and in
a sense he was right. [Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 86] As we indicated in section 7, anarchists argue that minorities should ignore (or rebel against) the majority if it is
oppressing the minority -- for progress to be achieved the "revolutionary interest" (freedom) must come first. Only in this way can the liberatory promise of democracy can be
secured in the face of any potential dictatorship of the majority. The Leninist position is that a minority can ignore the majority only if it is the party leadership for it is
they, the vanguard, who determine what the "revolutionary interest" is and, as a result, Leninism -- for all its rhetoric -- is fundamentally an anti-democratic ideology simply
because this justifies party dictatorship as everyone is "backward" compared to the vanguard. McNally distorts the anarchist position while proclaiming the democratic credentials
of Leninism. The facts are otherwise.

9. Why is McNally wrong on the relation of syndicalism to anarchism?

After slandering anarchism, McNally turns towards another form of libertarian socialism, namely syndicalism. It is worth quoting him in full as his comments are truly ridiculous:

    "There is . . . another trend which is sometimes associated with anarchism. This is syndicalism. The syndicalist outlook does believe in collective working class action
    to change society. Syndicalists look to trade union action -- such as general strikes -- to overthrow capitalism. Although some syndicalist viewpoints share a superficial
    similarity with anarchism -- particularly with its hostility to politics and political action -- syndicalism is not truly a form of anarchism. By accepting the need for mass,
    collective action and decision-making, syndicalism is much superior to classical anarchism."

The weakness of McNally's position can be seen from comparing his summary of syndicalism's key ideas with "classical anarchism", namely Bakunin's revolutionary anarchism. This
passage by Bakunin expresses almost all the ideas McNally ascribes to syndicalism:

    "Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances with bourgeois Radicalism . . . Abstain
    from all participation in bourgeois Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The bases of this organisation . . . are the workshops and the
    federation of workshops . . . instruments of struggle against the bourgeoisie, and their federation, not only national, but international . . . when the hour of revolution
    sounds, you will proclaim the liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society, anarchy, that is to say the true, frank people's revolution." [quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael
    Bakunin and Karl Marx, pp. 120-1]

Bakunin, therefore, stressed trade union action, arguing as "strikes spread from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general strike. And with the ideas of
emancipation that now hold sway over the proletariat, a general strike can result only in a great cataclysm which forces society to shed its old skin." He raised the possibility
that this could "arrive before the proletariat is sufficiently organised" and dismissed it the "necessities of the struggle impel the workers to support one another" and the "more
active the struggle becomes . . . the stronger and more extensive this federation of proletarians must become." Thus strikes "indicate a certain collective strength already" and
"each strike becomes the point of departure for the formation of new groups." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 149-50]

For Bakunin, like the later syndicalists, "the natural organisation of the masses . . . is organisation based on the various ways that their various types of work define their
day-to-day life; it is organisation by trade association" and once "every occupation . . . is represented within the International [Working-Men's Association], its organisation,
the organisation of the masses of the people will be complete." [Op. Cit., p. 139] Thus "unions create that conscious power without which no victory is possible" while strikes
"create, organise, and form a workers' army, an army which is bound to break down the power of the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new world." [ The Political
Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 379 and pp. 384-5] The "organisation of the trade sections and their representation by the Chambers of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of
the new society which is to replace the old world. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]

And yet McNally proclaims that Bakunin "shared most of Proudhon's views" and so, by implication, "so feared the organised power of the developing working class that he went so far
as to oppose trade unions"! Rather than be against the "freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society", Bakunin repeatedly argued that "the new social order"
would be attained "through the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the working masses of the cities and villages." This would see "capital and all tools
of labour belong to the city workers -- to the workers associations. The whole organisation of the future should be nothing but a free federation of workers -- agricultural workers
as well as factory workers and associations of craftsmen." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 300 an p. 410] This position was common to all revolutionary anarchists (see
sections H.2.2 and H.2.7).

What is ridiculous about McNally's comments is that all historians who take the time to read Bakunin's works note the obvious links between his ideas and syndicalism. Let us
present a few examples here (many writers also point to syndicalist aspects in Proudhon's ideas as well but we will concentrate on Bakunin). Thus we discover Caroline Cahm pointing
out "the basic syndicalist ideas of Bakunin" and that he "argued that trade union organisation and activity in the International [Working Men's Association] were important in
the building of working-class power in the struggle against capital . . . He also declared that trade union based organisation of the International would not only guide the
revolution but also provide the basis for the organisation of the society of the future." Indeed, he "believed that trade unions had an essential part to play in the developing of
revolutionary capacities of the workers as well as building up the organisation of the masses for revolution." [Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 219, p. 215
and p. 216] George R. Esenwein noted that syndicalism "had deep roots in the Spanish libertarian tradition. It can be traced to Bakunin's revolutionary collectivism" and the class
struggle was "central to Bakunin's theory." [ Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain, p. 209 and p. 20] The syndicalists "viewed themselves as the descendants
of the federalist wing of the First International, personified above else by Mikhail Bakunin." [Wayne Thorpe, "The Workers Themselves", pp. xiii-xiv] "Hardly any of these ideas
[associated with syndicalism] are new", stated Bertrand Russell "almost all are derived from the Bakunist [sic!] section of the old International" and this was "often recognised by
Syndicalists themselves." [Roads to Freedom, p. 52] J. Romero Maura correctly summarised that for the "Bakuninists" in the First International, the "anarchist revolution, when it
came, would be essentially brought about by the working class. Revolutionaries needed to gather great strength and must beware of underestimating the strength of reaction" and so
they "logically decided that revolutionaries had better organise along the lines of labour organisations." ["The Spanish case", pp. 60-83, Anarchism Today , D. Apter and J. Joll
(eds.), p. 66]

We could go on but as leading syndicalist activist and thinker Rudolf Rocker summarised:

    "Modern Anarcho-syndicalism is a direct continuation of those social aspirations which took shape in the bosom of the First International and which were best understood and
    most strongly held by the libertarian wing of the great workers' alliance." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 54]

Perhaps, in the face of such evidence (and the writings of Bakunin himself!), Marxists like McNally could claim that the sources we quote are either anarchists or "sympathetic" to
anarchism. To counter this we will quote Marx and Engels. According to Marx, Bakunin's theory consisted of urging the working class to "only organise themselves by trades-unions"
and "not occupy itself with politics." Engels asserted that in the "Bakuninist programme a general strike is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started" and
that they admitted "this required a well-formed organisation of the working class". [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 48, p. 132 and p. 133] Ignoring
the misrepresentations of Marx and Engels about the theories of their enemies, we can state that they got the basic point of Bakunin's ideas -- the centrality of trade union
organisation and struggle as well as the use of strikes as the means of starting a social revolution.

(As an aside, ironically enough, Engels distorted diatribe against Bakunin and the general strike was later used against more radical Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg -- usually
claimed by Leninists as part of their tradition -- by the reformists in Social Democratic Parties. For orthodox Marxists, the mass strike was linked to anarchism and Engels had
proven that only political action -- i.e. electioneering -- could lead to working class emancipation. This appeal to authority lead Luxemburg to the innovative tactic of suggesting
Engels was correct against the anarchist general strike but not against her mass strike! That this involved distorting the anarchist position -- as Engels had done -- should go
without saying -- see section H.3.5.)

It should be stressed that Bakunin's position on revolutionary class struggle waged by workers' organisations became the basis of revolutionary anarchism. Thus we find, for
example, Emma Goldman arguing that in the First International "Bakunin and the Latin workers" forged ahead "along industrial and Syndicalist lines" and so syndicalism "is, in
essence, the economic expression of Anarchism" and "[l]ike Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers along direct economic lines, as conscious factors in the great struggles of
to-day, as well as conscious factors in the task of reconstructing society." The "most powerful weapon" for liberation was "the conscious, intelligent, organised, economic protest
of the masses through direct action and the general strike." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 89, p. 91 and p. 60] Kropotkin summarised the libertarian perspective well in 1907:

    "Workmen's organisations are the real force capable of accomplishing the social revolution -– after the awakening of the proletariat has been accomplished, first by individual
    action, then by collective action, by strikes and revolts extending more and more; and where workmen's organisations have not allowed themselves to be dominated by the
    gentlemen who advocate 'the conquest of political power', but have continued to walk hand in hand with anarchists –- as they have done in Spain -– they have obtained, on the
    one hand, immediate results (an eight-hour day in certain trades in Catalonia), and on the other have made good propaganda for the social revolution -– the one to come, not
    from the efforts of those highly-placed gentlemen, but from below, from workmen's organisations." [ "Anarchists and Trade Unions", Direct Struggle Against Capital, pp. 391-2]

We will leave the matter here and point interested readers to our extended discussion of the links between anarchism and syndicalism in section H.2.8. However, the inaccuracy of
McNally's statement should be clear as we have shown that according to him "syndicalism" (i.e. Bakunin's ideas) is "much superior to classical anarchism" (i.e. Bakunin's ideas)!
How spurious his argument actually is can be seen from his comments about syndicalism and its relation to anarchism.

10. Do syndicalists reject working class political action?

McNally, after getting the relationship between "classical anarchism" and syndicalism completely wrong (see last section), moves on to an equally flawed argument against
syndicalism. He states that "by rejecting the idea of working class political action, syndicalism has never been able to give real direction to attempts by workers to change
society." However, syndicalists (like all anarchists) are clear what kind of politics they reject -- bourgeois politics (i.e. the running of candidates in elections). It is worth
quoting Rudolf Rocker at length on McNally's claim:

    "It has often been charged against Anarcho-Syndicalism that it has no interest in the political structure of the different countries, and consequently no interest in the
    political struggles of the time, and confines its activities to the fight for purely economic demands. This idea is altogether erroneous and springs either from outright
    ignorance or wilful distortion of the facts. It is not the political struggle as such which distinguishes the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the modern labour parties, both in
    principle and in tactics, but the form of this struggle and the aims which it has in view. . .

    "The attitude of Anarcho-Syndicalism toward the political power of the present-day state is exactly the same as it takes toward the system of capitalist exploitation. . . [and
    so] Anarcho-Syndicalists pursue the same tactics in their fight against that political power which finds its expression in the state. . .

    "For just as the worker cannot be indifferent to the economic conditions of his life in existing society, so he cannot remain indifferent to the political structure of his
    country. . . It is, therefore, utterly absurd to assert that the Anarcho-Syndicalists take no interest in the political struggles of the time. . . But the point of attack in
    the political struggle lies, not in the legislative bodies, but in the people. . . If they, nevertheless, reject any participation in the work of bourgeois parliaments, it is
    not because they have no sympathy with political struggles in general, but because they are firmly convinced that parliamentary activity is for the workers the very weakest and
    the most hopeless form of the political struggle. . .

    "But, most important of all, practical experience has shown that the participation of the workers in parliamentary activity cripples their power of resistance and dooms to
    futility their warfare against the existing system. . .

    "Anarcho-Syndicalists, then, are not in any way opposed to the political struggle, but in their opinion this struggle, too, must take the form of direct action, in which the
    instruments of economic power which the working class has at its command are the most effective. . .

    "The focal point of the political struggle lies, then, not in the political parties, but in the economic fighting organisations of the workers. It as the recognition of this
    which impelled the Anarcho-Syndicalists to centre all their activity on the Socialist education of the masses and on the utilisation of their economic and social power. Their
    method is that of direct action in both the economic and the political struggles of the time. That is the only method which has been able to achieve anything at all in every
    decisive moment in history." [Op. Cit., pp. 73-78]

Rocker's work, Anarcho-Syndicalism, was written in 1938 and is considered the standard introduction to that theory. McNally wrote his pamphlet in the 1980s and did not bother to
consult the classic introduction to the ideas he claims to be refuting. That in itself indicates the worth of his pamphlet and any claims it has for being remotely accurate with
respect to anarchism and syndicalism.

Syndicalists, then, do reject working class "political action" only if you think "political action" means simply bourgeois politics -- that is, electioneering, standing candidates
for Parliament, local town councils and so on. It does not reject "political action" in the sense of direct action to effect political changes and reforms. As syndicalists Ford and
Foster argued, syndicalists use "the term 'political action' . . . in its ordinary and correct sense. Parliamentary action resulting from the exercise of the franchise is political
action. Parliamentary action caused by the influence of direct action tactics . . . is not political action. It is simply a registration of direct action." They also note that
syndicalists "have proven time and again that they can solve the many so-called political questions by direct action." [Earl C. Ford and William Z. Foster, Syndicalism, p. 19f and
p. 23] A historian of the British syndicalist movement reiterates this point:

    "Nor did syndicalists neglect politics and the state. Revolutionary industrial movements were on the contrary highly 'political' in that they sought to understand, challenge
    and destroy the structure of capitalist power in society. They quite clearly perceived the oppressive role of the state whose periodic intervention in industrial unrest could
    hardly have been missed." [Bob Holton, British Syndicalism: 1900-1914, pp. 21-2]

This awareness that the state could not be ignored but had to be fought is reflected in the 1909 French syndicalist novel How We Shall Bring About the Revolution which discussed
how the Chamber of Deputies was "invaded from all sides" by the crowd during the revolution, which "threatened with death any deputies who should dare sit again." The "General
Strikers were on watch" and "in order to guard against any aggressive action by the fallen power, or any effort to re-establish Parliamentarianism, a certain number of their
comrades should remain permanently at the Palais Bourdon" and "oppose by force any counter-revolutionary measures." Guards were also used in "the Police Offices, the Government
Offices, the Elyse'e, etc." after "having taken them by assault." The town hall "was not neglected" and "was occupied" in a similar fashion. Thus there was a "definite intention of
disorganising the State, of dismantling and thoroughly disabling it" to ensure it was "impossible for the Government to recover itself, or rally around any point whatever." Thus
the general strike "very soon changed into an insurrectional strike" and “the General Strikers occupied the centres of Government action, and expelled the representative of the
State. The state would be replaced by Bourses du Travail (local federation of unions) and the Trades Unions Congress, with the latter being formed by delegates "from all parts of
France" and "from all trades, from all professions" and "having to decide upon points previously discussed by the comrades who had sent them." The similarities to soviets -- and
Bakunin's ideas (see section 5) -- are clear. Nor did they ignore the need to defend a revolution and like revolutionary anarchists (see section H.2.1) argued for the unions to
form "bands" to "watch over the security of the committees" and "sought to arm themselves" in order to "counterbalance the military and other forces" which "held them under the
yoke." The trade unions distributed arms and in each syndicate "a group for defence was formed" which entered "into relation with like groups in the same district, and with distant
centres" by means of an "organisation of defence, with a Trade Union and Federal basis." These "Syndicalist battalions were not a force external to the people. They were the people
themselves" who "had the common-sense to arm themselves in order to protect their conquered liberty." [Emile Pataud and Emile Pouget, How We Shall Bring About the Revolution, pp.
79-83, p. 94, pp. 128-9, p. 69 and pp. 155-7]

As we argued in section J.2.10, anarchist support for direct action and opposition to taking part in elections does not mean we are "apolitical" or reject political action.
Anarchists have always been clear -- we reject "political action" which is bourgeois in nature in favour of "political action" based on the organisations, action and solidarity of
working class people. This is because electioneering corrupts those who take part, watering down their radical ideas and making them part of the system they were meant to change.
As Rocker summarised:

    "Participation in the politics of the bourgeois States has not brought the labour movement a hair's-breadth nearer to Socialism, but thanks to this method, Socialism has almost
    been completely crushed and condemned to insignificance . . . Participation in parliamentary politics has affected the Socialist Labour movement like an insidious poison. It
    destroyed the belief in the necessity of constructive Socialist activity, and, worse of all, the impulse to self-help, by inoculating people with the ruinous delusion that
    salvation always comes from above." [Op. Cit., p. 54]

Rocker's last point is important, given that McNally seeks to appropriate the idea of "from below" for Marxism. He is well aware of the results of socialist electioneering,
reporting how by the start of the 20th century "most European socialists. . . came to the view that socialism would be achieved gradually, through the slow transformation of
capitalism into a kind of welfare capitalism under which workers would prosper" and "[g]one was Marx's notion that socialism could only come into being through a revolutionary
transformation of society from below. In its place developed the view that capitalism would slowly grow over into socialism." However, he significantly fails to note that these
parties considered themselves as Marxist and had been following the strategy Marx and Engels had advocated.

It would have been informative to his readership if McNally had found time to discuss this awkward fact. One of the key differences between Marx and Bakunin in the First
International was over "political action": the forming of political parties and standing in elections. Bakunin argued that "it is usually enough for these men of the people to
enter government for them to become members of the bourgeoisie in their turn, sometimes scorning the people from whom they came more than do the natural-born members of the
bourgeoisie." The need was "the organisation of the might of the workers, the unification of the proletariat of the entire world" by "eliminat[ing] from its program all bourgeois
political schemes" in favour of "workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means trades unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds." [The Basic
Bakunin, p. 51, p. 93, p. 99 and p. 103] Marx and Engels, in contrast, favoured "political action" and completely failed, unlike Bakunin, to recognise the dangers of reformism
in the tactic. Indeed, in 1891 Engels proudly announced that the Brussels Congress of the Second International "proved a brilliant success for us . . . And, best of all, the
anarchists have been shown the door, just as they were at the Hague Congress. The new, incomparably larger and avowedly Marxist International is beginning again at the precise spot
where its predecessor ended." [Collected Works, vol. 49, p. 238]

McNally, like most Leninists, is keen to distance Marx and Engels from Social Democracy and so does not note their repeated comments -- both before and after the Paris Commune that
socialism could come about peacefully by utilising elections (see section H.3.10). Engels in 1847, for example, argued that the "first, fundamental condition for the introduction
of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution" and so the revolution's had to "inaugurate a democratic constitution and
thereby . . . the political rule of the proletariat" as in "America, where a democratic constitution has been introduced" [Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 102, p. 350 and p. 356] In
contrast, Proudhon had concluded the year before that the state could not be captured and reformed and socialism could only be created by proletarian self-organisation:

    "Thus power [i.e. the state] . . . finds itself inevitably enchained to capital and directed against the proletariat . . . The problem before the labouring classes, then,
    consists, not in capturing, but in subduing both power and monopoly -- that is, in generating from the bowels of the people, from the depths of labour, a greater authority, a
    more potent fact, which shall envelop capital and the State and subjugate them. Every proposition of reform which does not satisfy this condition is simply one scourge more . .
    . which threatens the proletariat." [Property is Theft!, p. 226]



The syndicalists, like Bakunin, argued the same -- although, unlike the Frenchman, saw the trade union movement as the means of social transformation. It is almost redundant to
note that history has proven the validity of anarchist anti-electioneering ideas. For example, as we argue in section J.2.6, the net result of the Marxists use of electioneering
("political action") was the de-radicalising of their movement and theory and its becoming yet another barrier to working class self-liberation. Rather than syndicalism not giving
"real direction to attempts by workers to change society" it was Marxism in the shape of Social Democracy which did that. Indeed, at the turn of twentieth century more and more
radicals turned to Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism as the means of by-passing the dead-weight of Social Democracy (i.e. orthodox Marxism), its reformism, its opportunism and
its bureaucracy.

This was recognised by Lenin, if in his own way. Anarchism, he suggested, "was not infrequently a kind of penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement."
[Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 32] His claim that anarchist and syndicalist support in the working class is the result of the opportunist nature of the Social Democratic Parties has
an element of truth. Obviously militants sick to death of the reformist, corrupt and bureaucratic "working class" parties will seek a revolutionary alternative and find libertarian
socialism. However, Lenin seeks to explain the symptoms (opportunism) and not the disease itself (Parliamentarianism) . Nowhere does he see the rise of "opportunist" tendencies
in the Marxist parties as the result of the tactics and organisational struggles they used. Indeed, Lenin desired the new Communist Parties to practice electioneering ("political
action"). Anarchists rather point out that given the nature of the means, the ends surely follow. Working in a bourgeois environment (Parliament) will result in bourgeoisifying
and de-radicalising the party. Working in a centralised environment will empower the leaders of the party over the members and lead to bureaucratic tendencies. In short, the means
urged inevitably produced a "from above" mentality and the descent into reformism -- a descent Lenin only noticed with the outbreak of war in 1914 and the siding of German Social
Democracy with its state in the imperialist slaughter.

As Bakunin predicted, using bourgeois institutions will corrupt "revolutionary" and radical parties and tie the working class to the current system. Lenin's analysis of anarchist
influence as being the off-spring of opportunist tendencies in mainstream parties may be right, but if so it is a natural development as the tactics supported by Marxists from Marx
onwards inevitably lead to opportunist tendencies developing. What Lenin could not comprehend was that opportunism was the symptom and electioneering was the disease -- using the
same means (electioneering) with different parties/individuals ("Communists" instead of "Social Democrats") and thinking that opportunism would not return was idealistic nonsense.

Sadly for his readers, McNally did not discuss any of this and preferred to present an inaccurate account of the syndicalist position on political struggles. Perhaps this is
understandable, for an accurate account would mention the debates of the First International and have to draw the obvious conclusion: Bakunin -- and the syndicalists -- were right.

11. Why is McNally's claim that Leninism supports working class self-emancipation wrong?

McNally claims that Marx "was the first major socialist thinker to make the principle of self-emancipation -- the principle that socialism could only be brought into being by the
self-mobilisation and self-organisation of the working class -- a fundamental aspect of the socialist project." This is not entirely true as "Proudhon insisted that the revolution
could only come from below, through the action of the workers themselves." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 157] In his
words:

    "Workers, labourers, men of the people, whoever you may be, the initiative of reform is yours. It is you who will accomplish that synthesis of social composition which will be
    the masterpiece of creation, and you alone can accomplish it." [quoted by George Woodcock, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography, p. 64]

As we indicated in section 2, Proudhon stressed that the working class had to free itself by its own means and its own organisations for, as indicated in section 10, the state was
a capitalist institution which could not be captured by the masses. So while Proudhon placed his hopes in reformist tendencies (such as workers' co-operatives and mutual banks) he
clearly believed in working class self-emancipation, even stating in 1848 that "the proletariat must emancipate itself" for "the revolutionary power . . . is not in the National
Assembly: it is in you. The people alone, acting upon themselves without intermediary, can achieve the economic Revolution begun in February. The people alone can save civilisation
and advance humanity!" [Property is Theft!, 306 and p. 366]

Marx's use of the famous expression -- "the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself" -- dates from 1865, 17 years after Proudhon's comment that
"the proletariat must emancipate itself." Moreover, as Libertarian Marxist Paul Mattick pointed out, Marx was not even the first person to use the expression "the emancipation of
the working class is the task of the working class itself" as Flora Tristan used it in 1843. [Marx and Keynes , p. 333] Thus a case could be made that Marx was, in fact, the third
"major socialist thinker to make the principle of self-emancipation -- the principle that socialism could only be brought into being by the self-mobilisation and self-organisation
of the working class -- a fundamental aspect of the socialist project."

Similarly, Bakunin continually quoted Marx's (and so Tristan's) words from the Preamble to the General Rules of the First International: "That the emancipation of the workers must
be accomplished by the workers themselves." Far more than Marx, Bakunin argued that workers' can only free themselves by a "single path, that of emancipation through practical
action" namely "workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses" by "trades-unions, organisation, and the federation of resistance funds". The "collective experience"
workers gain in the "collective struggle of the workers against the bosses" will ensure they "will necessarily come to realise that there is an irreconcilable antagonism between
the henchmen of reaction and [their] own dearest human concerns. Having reached this point, [the worker] will recognise [themselves] to be a revolutionary socialist." [The Basic
Bakunin, p. 92 and p. 103]

In contrast Marx placed his hopes for working class self-emancipation on a political party which would conquer "political power." As history soon proved, Marx was mistaken on two
levels. First, as Bakunin predicted, political action by socialist parties resulted in the political system changing the party rather than vice versa, that it "inexorably enmeshes
its adherents, under the pretext of political tactics, in endless accommodations with governments and the various bourgeois political parties -- that is, it thrusts them directly
into reaction." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 180] Second, "political power" can only be seized by a minority (i.e. the party, not the class it claims to represent) and if the few have
the power, the rest are no longer free (i.e. they no longer govern themselves). That the many elect the few who issue them orders does not signify emancipation!

However, this is beside the point. McNally proudly places his ideas in the Leninist tradition. It is thus somewhat ironic that McNally claims that Marxism is based on
self-emancipation of the working class while claiming Leninism as a form of Marxism as Lenin explicitly stated the opposite, namely that the working class could not liberate itself
by its own actions. In his 1902 book What is to be Done? Lenin argued that "the working class, exclusively by their own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness
. . . The theory of socialism [i.e. Marxism] . . . grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the
propertied classes, the intellectuals . . . the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour movement; it arose as a
natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." This meant that "Social Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness . . . could only be
brought to them [the workers] from without." Speaking on behalf of workers, he asked that the "intellectuals must talk to us, and tell us more about what we do not know and what we
can never learn from our factory and 'economic' experience, that is, you must give us political knowledge." [Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 74-5 and p. 108]

Thus, rather than believe in working class self-emancipation, Lenin thought the opposite. Without the radical bourgeois to provide the working class with "socialist" ideas, a
socialist movement, let along society, was impossible. Hardly what you would consider self-emancipation. As Lenin put it:

    "Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses of the workers in the process of their movement, the only choice is: either bourgeois or
    socialist ideology. There is no middle course . . . Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois
    ideology. There is a lot of talk about spontaneity, but the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology . . . Hence
    our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the
    bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy." [Op. Cit., pp. 82-3]

As we discuss in section H.5, this is a deeply anti-socialist position which, due to its privileging of the party, creates the theoretical justification for the anti-democratic
actions of the Bolsheviks we sketched in section 8. This perspective states that the party has a better understanding of what the interests of the people are than the people
themselves. If they reject the party then it means that they simply do not understand their own class interests and so they have become "declassed", to use Lenin's term. The party,
due to it being the repository of what socialism is, then has the right -- the duty -- to ignore the masses for to do otherwise "means strengthening bourgeois ideology". That this
is self-serving circular logic is an understatement but it is self-serving circular logic which, in revolutionary Russia, destroyed socialism in favour of state-capitalism and
party dictatorship.

For this notion of working class passivity is not confined to the "early" Lenin of What is to Be Done? infamy (not that there is any evidence that Lenin later repudiated the ideas
expressed there -- see section H.5.4). It can be found in his apparently more "libertarian" work The State and Revolution which argues that "we do not indulge in 'dreams' of
dispensing at once . . . with all subordination; these anarchist dreams . . . are totally alien to Marxism . . . we want the socialist revolution with human nature as it is now,
with human nature that cannot dispense with subordination, control and 'managers'" Nowhere is the notion that working class people, during the process of mass struggle, direct
action and revolution, revolutionises themselves (see sections A.2.7 and J.7.2, for example). Instead, we find a vision of people as they are under capitalism ("human nature as it
is now") and no vision of self-emancipation of the working class and the resulting changes that implies for those who are transforming society by their own action. Perhaps it will
be argued that Lenin sees "subordination" as being "to the armed vanguard of all the exploited . . . i.e., to the proletariat" and so there is no contradiction. However, this is
not the case as he confuses the rule of the party with the rule of the class: "We cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions."
[Op. Cit., p. 307 and p. 306]

Thus "subordination" is not to the working class itself (i.e. direct democracy or self-management). Rather it is the "subordination" of the majority to the minority, of the working
class to "its" representatives. Thus we have a vision of a "socialist" society in which the majority have not revolutionised themselves and are subordinated to "their" party. Such
a subordination, however, ensures that a socialist consciousness cannot develop as only the process of self-management generates the abilities required for self-management ("Only
freedom or the struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." [Malatesta, Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 59]). Lenin saw the revolution as the means by which the
mass of the people will recognise that the vanguard party represents their interests and so vote it into power. However, as "there can be no talk of an independent ideology being
developed by the masses of the workers in the process of their movement" any clash between the party and masses simply mean that the latter are wrong and "the armed vanguard" needs
"to combat spontaneity" -- literally, as we showed in section H.6.3. As Lenin admitted in 1920:

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

As we indicate in section H.3.8, this perspective meant that Leninist theorists ended up arguing for a state separate from the working class (a "state in the proper sense of the
word") rather than the semi-state promised in such works as The State and Revolution (a work whose promises, as we note in section H.1.7, were forsaken completely within six months
of the Bolshevik seizure of power). This was required to ensure that the party could "combat" spontaneous movements in the working class which questioned the privileged position of
the party -- both ideologically (in terms of its advanced ideas) and politically (its holding of power). This privileged position for the party engenders a perspective which can
(and did) justify party dictatorship over the proletariat. Given Lenin's position that the working class cannot formulate its own "ideology" by its own efforts, of its incapacity
to move beyond "trade union consciousness" independently of the party, the clear implication is that the party could in no way be bound by the predominant views of the working
class as these are, by definition non-socialist, bourgeois even. As the party embodies "socialist consciousness" (and this arises outside the working class and its struggles) then
opposition of the working class to the party signifies a failure of the class to resist alien influences, a failure that the party must fight to ensure that this failure does not
spread to the revolution itself -- the proletariat, in short, must be repressed in its own interests by the "proletarian" dictatorship.

Therefore McNally's comments that Leninism is a valid expression of Marx's idea of proletarian self-emancipation is false. In reality, Lenin rejected the idea that working class
people can emancipate themselves and, therefore, any claim that this tradition stands for proletarian self-emancipation is false. Rather Leninism, for all its rhetoric, has no
vision of working class self-activity leading to self-liberation -- it denies it can happen and that is why it stresses the role of the party and its need to take centralised power
into its own hands. Of course, it never entered Lenin's mind that if bourgeois ideology imposes itself onto the working class it also imposes itself on the party as well -- more so
as they are bourgeois intellectuals in the first place.

While anarchists are aware of the need for groups of like minded individuals to influence the class struggle and spread anarchist ideas, we reject the idea that such ideas have
to be "injected" into the working class from outside. Rather, as we argued in section J.3, anarchist ideas are developed within the class struggle by working people themselves.
Anarchist groups exist because we are aware that there is an uneven development of ideas within our class and to aid the spreading of libertarian ideas it is useful for those with
those ideas to work together. However, being aware that our ideas are the product of working class life and struggle we are also aware that we have to learn from that struggle. It
is because of this that anarchists stress self-management of working class struggle and organisation from below (anarchists are, to use Bakunin's words, "convinced that revolution
is only sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses, and that when it is concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and immediately becomes reaction"
[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 237]). Only when this happens can new ways of life be created and truly develop freely. It also explains anarchist opposition to political
groups seizing power -- that will only result in old dogmas crushing the initiative of people in struggle and the new forms of life they create. That is why anarchists stress the
importance of revolutionaries using "natural influence" (i.e. arguing their ideas in popular organisations and convincing by reason) -- doing so allows new developments and ideas
to be expressed and enriched by existing ones and vice versa.

One last point. It could be argued that similar comments to Lenin's arguments can be found in Marx and Engels and so Marxism as such rather than just Leninism does not believe
in proletarian self-emancipation. After all, had not The Manifesto of the Communist Party proclaimed that "a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the
revolutionary class" and this "portion of the bourgeois ideologists" have "raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole." In
addition, the Communists are "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties" and "they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly
understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the general results of the proletarian movement". [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 481 and p. 484] This, needless to say, places
"bourgeois ideologists" and party leaders (like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky) in a privileged position within the party, labour movement and society as a whole. Had not Marx and
Engels argued in The Holy Family that the "question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole of the proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is
what the proletariat is, and what, consequent on that being, it will be compelled to do." [quoted by Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 280] As Murray Bookchin argued:

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

Unlike Lenin and Trotsky, Marx and Engels rarely drew the obvious conclusions from their arguments (although their contempt for working class socialist thinkers -- like Proudhon --
was legendary) but the elitism was there. It is to Bakunin's merit that he recognised the danger long before the likes of Lenin and Trotsky (see section 15) made it explicit.

12. Why is Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism contradictory?

Another ironic aspect of McNally's pamphlet is its demonisation of anarchism combined with praise for the Paris Commune and the Russian Soviets. This is because key aspects of
both revolutionary forms were predicted by Proudhon and Bakunin. For example, McNally's and Marx's praise for revocable mandates in the Commune was advocated by Proudhon in 1840s
(see section 4). Bakunin also advocated this in the late 1860s along with a federation of delegates from workplaces which showed a marked similarity with the Russian soviets (see
section 5).

Indeed, the Paris Commune (in both its economic and political aspects) showed a clear inspiration from Proudhon's works. In the words of George Woodcock, there are "demands in
the Commune's Manifesto to the French People of the 19th April, 1871, that might have been written by Proudhon himself." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: A Biography, p. 276] K. Steven
Vincent also points out that the declaration "is strongly federalist in tone, and it has a marked proudhonian flavour." [Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican
Socialism, p. 232] Moreover, the desire to replace wage labour with associated labour by the creation of co-operatives expressed during the Commune clearly showed the influence
of Proudhon. Marx mentions a "rough sketch of national organisation which the Commune had no time to develop" but does not quote from it. [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 633] This is
perhaps unsurprising as the Commune's declaration clearly shows its anarchist roots and tendencies:

    "The absolute autonomy of the Commune extended to all localities in France and assuring to each one its full rights, and to every Frenchman the full exercise of his faculties
    and abilities as man, citizen and producer.

    "The only limit to the autonomy of the Commune should be the equal right to autonomy for all communes adhering to the contract, whose association shall insure French unity . .
    . The choice by election or competition of magistrates and communal functionaries of all orders, as well as the permanent right of control and revocation.

    "The absolute guarantee of individual freedom and freedom of conscience.

    "The permanent intervention of citizens in communal affairs by the free manifestation of their ideas, the free defence of their interests . . .

    "The organisation of urban defence and the National Guard, which elects its chiefs and alone watches over the maintenance of order in the city . . .

    "Paris wants nothing else as a local guarantee, on condition, of course, of finding in the great central administration -- the delegation of federated Communes -- the
    realisation and the practice of the same principles. But as an element of its autonomy, and profiting by its freedom of action, within its borders it reserves to itself
    the right to operate the administrative and economic reforms called for by the populace as it wills; to create the institutions needed to develop and spread instruction,
    production, exchange and credit; to universalise power and property in keeping with the needs of the moment, the wishes of those concerned and the facts furnished by
    experience.

    "Unity, as it has been imposed on us until today by the Empire, the monarchy or parliamentarism is nothing but unintelligent, arbitrary or onerous centralisation.

    "Political unity, as Paris wants it, is the voluntary association of all local initiatives, the spontaneous and free concourse of all individual energies in view of a common
    goal: the well-being, the freedom and the security of all.

    "The communal revolution, begun by popular initiative on March 18, begins a new era of experimental, positive, scientific politics.

    "It is the end of the old governmental and clerical world, of militarism and bureaucracy, of exploitation, speculation, monopolies and privileges to which the proletariat owe
    their servitude and the Fatherland its misfortunes and disasters." ["Declaration to the French People", pp. 789-791, Property is Theft!, pp. 789-790]

The links with Proudhon's ideas cannot be clearer. Little wonder, then, that during the Commune anarchist James Guillaume stated that "the Paris Revolution is federalist . . .
in the sense given it years ago by the great socialist, Proudhon." It is "above all the negation of the nation and the State." [contained in The Paris Commune of 1871: The View
From the Left, Eugene Schulkind (ed.), p. 191] Bakunin, for his part, rightly argued that its "general effect was so striking that the Marxists themselves, who saw their ideas
upset by the uprising, found themselves compelled to take their hats off to it. They went further, and proclaimed that its programme and purpose where their own, in face of the
simplest logic . . . This was a truly farcical change of costume, but they were bound to make it, for fear of being overtaken and left behind in the wave of feeling which the
rising produced throughout the world." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 261]

To see why, we need simply to compare Marx's reporting of the Commune with Proudhon's words. Marx stated, correctly, that the Commune "was formed of the municipal councillors,
chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms" and was "a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at
the same time". The delegates would "revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents" [The Marx-Engels Readers, p. 632 and p. 633] As well as
arguing that "federalism is the political form of humanity", Proudhon also argued that the "legislative power is not distinguished from the executive power." [ Property is Theft!,
p. 678 and p. 674] As he put it in 1848:

    "It is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees, to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power . . . Besides universal
    suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the imperative mandate [mandat impe'ratif]. Politicians balk at it! Which means that in their
    eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy." [Op.
    Cit., pp. 378-9]

This applies to the economic goals of the Commune, with Marx suggesting that it "wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, capital,
now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labour, into mere instruments of free and associated labour" and "this is Communism". Engels, twenty years later, painted a
picture of Proudhon being opposed to association (except for large-scale industry) and stated that "to combine all these associations in one great union" was "the direct opposite
of the Proudhon doctrine" and so "the Commune was the grave of the Proudhon school of socialism." [Op. Cit., p. 635 and p. 626] Yet they must have been aware of Proudhon's support
for large-scale industry and workers associations (section 4 ) as expressed, for example, in his 1863 call for an "agricultural-industrial federation" or his 1846 comment that "to
unfold the system of economic contradictions is to lay the foundations of universal association" [Op. Cit., p. 712 and p. 179] As he put it in 1848:

    "under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership . . . We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically
    organised workers’ associations . . . We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and
    societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic." [Op. Cit., pp. 777-8]

Given that Marx described the Commune as "essentially a working-class government", "the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economic emancipation of
labour" and "will be for ever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society", it is strange that McNally terms Proudhon's and Bakunin's ideas as those of the past. [Op.
Cit., pp. 634-5 and p. 652] It seems the height of hypocrisy for McNally to attack Proudhon while praising the Paris Commune.

So the awkward fact is that anarchists had been advocating these forms since Proudhon in the 1840s and they were developed by Bakunin in the 1860s. Nothing similar can be found
in Marx until the Commune which suggests, as Anarchist K.J. Kenafick stated, "that the programme [the Commune] set out is . . . the system of Federalism, which Bakunin had
been advocating for years, and which had first been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised considerable influence in the Commune. This 'political form' was
therefore not 'at last' discovered; it had been discovered years ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost
automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather than as the result of theory, as being the form most suitable to express working class aspirations." [Michael Bakunin and
Karl Marx, pp. 212-3]

Little wonder few Marxists (like Marx himself) directly quote from the Commune's declaration. It would be difficult to attack anarchism (as "petty-bourgeois") while proclaiming the
Paris Commune as the first example of "the dictatorship of the Proletariat." The decentralised, federalist nature of the Commune cannot be squared with the usual Marxist instance
on centralisation and the claim that federalism "as a principle follows logically from the petty-bourgeois views of anarchism. Marx was a centralist" and to "confuse Marx's
views . . . with Proudhon's federalism is positively monstrous!" While there may be "not a trace of federalism" in Marx's "observations on the experience of the Commune", the
Commune itself was distinctly federalist in its aspirations. If Marx "upheld democratic centralism, the republic -- one and indivisible" the same cannot be said of the Communards
themselves. [Lenin, "The State and Revolution", The Lenin Anthology, p. 348, p. 347 and p. 361] As Paul Avrich noted, the "influence of Proudhon -- unquestionably greater than that
of Marx -- was reflected in the title of 'Federals' by which the Communards were known." [Anarchist Portraits, p. 232]

This is not to suggest that the Commune was a perfect example of anarchism in action -- far from it. As we indicate in section A.5.1, while it wished federalism outside of Paris
it was not federalist within its boundaries. If, as Marx put it, "the Paris Commune took the management of the revolution in its own hands" then its structure simply was not up
to its tasks. [Op. Cit., p. 636] As Bakunin put it, while the Commune was "a bold and outspoken negation of the State", the Communards had set up "a revolutionary government"
within Paris and so organised "themselves in reactionary Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they themselves knew were the first conditions of revolutionary socialism",
rather than "by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international
and universal" organised "solely from the bottom upwards." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 199, p. 202 and p. 206] Building on Bakunin's comments, Kropotkin argued that
while "proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential anarchist principle" but "they stopped mid-course" and gave "themselves a Communal Council copied
from the old municipal councils." Thus the Paris Commune did not "break with the tradition of the State, of representative government, and it did not attempt to achieve within
the Commune that organisation from the simple to the complex it inaugurated by proclaiming the independence and free federation of the Communes." Kropotkin continually stressed
that the revolutionaries were isolated from the masses and shut-up in the town hall which lead to disaster as the Commune council became "immobilised . . . by red tape" and lost
"the sensitivity that comes from continued contact with the masses . . . Paralysed by their distancing from the revolutionary centre –- the people -– they themselves paralysed the
popular initiative." [ Words of a Rebel, p. 97, p. 93 and p. 97]

So the Commune applied aspects of anarchism but not all. However, the main thrust of the revolt was federalist in nature -- something Marxists tend to forget to mention. Anarchists
argued that the Commune should have rejected the Municipal Council and instead organised a workers' council. Anarchist ideas, then, as can be seen from the Paris Commune and the
soviets were the ideas of the future -- and of working class self-liberation and self-organisation. And ones that Marx and his followers paid lip service to.

(We say lip service for Marx's praise for the Commune did not stop him recommending the labour movement to stand candidates in national elections nor did Lenin quoting Marx's
statement that the future proletarian state, like the Paris Commune, would abolish the distinction between executive and administrative powers mean he honoured it. Immediately
after the October Revolution the Bolsheviks established an executive power above the soviets, namely the Council of People's Commissars. Those who quote Lenin's The State and
Revolution as proof of his democratic nature usually fail to mention this little fact. In practice that work was little more than an election manifesto to be broken as required, as
we shown in section H.1.7)

In fact, the Paris Commune was primarily the work of artisans (the bulk of the Parisian workers at the time). This is reflected in Marx's comments in 1866 that the French workers
were "corrupted" by Proudhon's "sham criticism and sham opposition to the Utopians (he himself is only a petty-bourgeois utopian . . .) ", "particularly those of Paris, who as
workers in luxury trades are strongly attached, without knowing it [!], to the old rubbish." The "Parisian gentlemen had their heads full of the emptiest Proudhonist phrases" and
so "Proudhon did enormous mischief." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism, pp. 45-6] Five years later, these workers (still obviously influenced by "the old
rubbish" and their heads still full of "Proudhonist phrases") created "the political form" of "the economic emancipation of labour." This is not explained by Marxists, who also do
not trouble themselves to explain how can the Paris Commune be the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" when 35 members of the Commune's council were artisans and only 4 or 5 were
industrial workers (i.e. proletarians).

Can the fact that Proudhon-influenced artisans were, according to McNally and Marx, social strata of the past, were backward looking, etc. be reconciled with the claim that the
Paris Commune was the political form of proletarian emancipation? No, not from a Marxist class analysis. Hence Marxists ignoring the real nature of the Parisian working class
when discussing the commune. However, from an anarchist perspective -- which sees the artisan, peasant and proletariat forming a common class of working people -- the development
of the Paris Commune is no surprise. It is the work of people seeking to end wage labour and the threat of wage labour now rather than sometime in the future once capitalism has
fully developed. Thus McNally's (and Marx's) support for the Commune makes a mockery of his attacks on anarchism as the theory of the artisans and peasants for it was the artisans
who created the first model of their "proletarian" state and applied what they say they consider the foundations of "proletarian" democracy -- electing mandated and recallable
delegates. That the "petty-bourgeois" Proudhon advocated this 23 years before Marx did is, of course, left unsaid.

As indicated, McNally's arguments do not hold water. Ironically, if anarchism was the death-cry of the artisan and peasant then it is strange, to say the least, that this theory so
influenced the Paris Commune which McNally praises so much. We therefore suggest that rather than being a backward-looking cry of despair for those disappearing under the wheels
of rising capitalism, anarchism was in fact a theory developed from the struggles and self-activity of those currently suffering capitalist and state oppression -- namely the
artisans, peasants and industrial proletariat (i.e. the working class as a whole). In other words, it is a philosophy and theory for the future, not of the past. This can be seen
from the libertarian aspects of the Paris Commune, aspects Marx immediately tried to appropriate for his own theories (which, unfortunately, were swamped by the authoritarian
elements that existed already).

In addition the "old rubbish" the Parisian workers supported was very much ahead of its time. In 1869 the delegate of the Parisian Construction Workers' Trade Union argued that
"[a]ssociation of the different corporations [labour unions] 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 liaise 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." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 184] Such a vision of workers' councils and associated labour has obvious similarities with
the spontaneously created soviets of the 1905 Russian Revolution. These, too, were based on assembled councils of workers' delegates. Of course they were differences but the basic
idea and vision are identical.

Therefore to claim that anarchism represents the past presents Marxists with a few problems given the nature of the Paris Commune and its obvious libertarian nature. If it is
claimed that the Parisian artisans defended "not their present, but their future interests" and so "desert[ed] their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat"
(the class they are being "tranfer [ed]" into by the rise of capitalism) then, clearly, anarchist ideas are "future," proletarian, ideas as it is that class interest artisans serve
"[i]f by chance they are revolutionary." [Marx and Engels, "The Communist Manifesto", The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 482]

Whichever way you look at it, McNally's claims on the class nature of anarchism do not stand up to close analysis. Proudhon addressed both artisan/peasant and wage-worker in his
works. He addressed both the current and the future working class. Bakunin did likewise. Moreover, both were part of the workers movement. Proudhon was working class, the son of
an artisan and peasant who was a printer by trade, and took part in the debates and polemics of the French socialist movement as well as the 1848 Revolution. Bakunin joined the
First International, taking an active part in its debates and championing the syndicalist ideas which had evolved from Proudhon's mutualism in France, Belgium, Spain and Italy.
As Paul Avrich suggests, as "early as the 1860's and 1870's, the followers of Proudhon and Bakunin in the First International were proposing the formation of workers' councils
designed both as a weapon of class struggle against capitalists and as the structural basis of the future libertarian society" [The Russian Anarchists, p. 73] Therefore it is not
surprising that Proudhon and Bakunin predicted aspects of the Paris Commune -- they were expressing the politics of the future. As is clear from their writings, which still remain
fresh today.

This is reflected in another comment by McNally, who writes that "all major trends in Russian socialism had believed that a bourgeois democratic revolution -- a revolution against
Czarism and for the establishment not of socialism but merely of liberal capitalism -- would have to precede a workers' revolution in Russia. In 1906, Leon Trotsky developed a
dissenting view. Only the working class of Russia, Trotsky argued, would be willing and able to carry through the fight for democratic reforms and for a democratic republic. But
why, he asked, should the workers be expected to stop at that point? Why should they not extend the fight for democratic rights into a struggle for workers' control and socialist
democracy?" In reality, the idea that working people should extend a revolution from political to economic goals was raised by both Proudhon and Bakunin long before Trotsky and,
moreover, was advocated by Kropotkin the year before Trotsky introduced it into Marxism.

Thus Proudhon argued that the 1848 revolution "had been made 'without an idea' and that it had unfortunately satisfied itself with the proclamation of purely political palliatives"
and "he did not believe that such political reforms would solve the social problem." [K. Steven Vincent, Op. Cit., p. 169] Bakunin took up, as with so many other things,
Proudhon's argument and, as we discuss in section H.1.1, a key part of Bakunin's critique of Marxism was precisely that it looked to political change before social and economic
transformation, the latter coming as a result of "political action" allowed by the previous political revolution. Thus "[t]o win political freedom first can signify no other
thing but to win this freedom only, leaving for the first days at least economic and social relations in the same old state, -- that is, leaving the proprietors and capitalists
with their insolent wealth, and the workers with their poverty." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 294] This meant that anarchists aimed to ensure any revolution was
"simultaneously universal, social, philosophical, economic and political revolution". The "revolution as we understand it will . . . set about the . . . complete destruction of the
State . . . The natural and necessary upshot of that destruction" will include the "[d]issolution of the army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and clergy" and "[a]ll productive
capital and instruments of labour . . . be[ing] confiscated for the benefit of toilers associations, which will have to put them to use in collective production" as well as
the "[s]eizure of all Church and State properties." The "federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune." The people "must make the revolution
everywhere, and . . . ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
organised from the bottom up." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1 pp. 152-6] This was echoed by Kropotkin in 1905:

    "The Russian people -- the working men -- having compelled the autocrat to abdicate his despotic power, must compel him now to give body to his abdication by sending away the
    troops upon which rest his power and the power of bureaucracy, the power of unbridled capitalism.

    "The people must arm itself; otherwise the Tsar, the bureaucrats and the capitalists will crush it down . . . the Russian working men must not forget their own demands. To
    guarantee the individual against police arbitrariness is necessary for all. But he who works and produces riches with his own hands requires something else. . . . If you are
    compelled tomorrow, after the Constitution has been proclaimed, to return to the factories the same slaves as you have been before, then you will have been betrayed . . .

    "Don't expect anything from would-be saviours. But in every factory, every building yard, every workshop, and every mine, establish yourselves the order of things which, by
    common accord, you will find proper to establish. But remember this: Don't allow others to interfere! It is your affair, and you have to settle it.

    "Accomplish yourselves a revolution in the organisation of labour as you have accomplished it in the general administration of the Russian State.

    "Don't trust those who will tell you: 'Not yet! It is too soon!' No, it is not too soon; it is just the time for it." ["The Revolution in Russia", Direct Struggle Against
    Capital, pp. 456-7]

As with the Paris Commune and the soviets, yet another key aspect of McNally's Marxism was first advocated by anarchists. As Emma Goldman noted in 1918, the Bolsheviks where
"adopting Anarchist Revolutionary tactics" and, unlike in 1905, in 1917 they "no longer believe" that "the industrialisation of Russia and the historic mission of the bourgeoisie
as a necessary evolutionary process before the Russian masses could come into their own" and now accepted "the point of view held by the Anarchists since Bakunin; namely, that
once the masses become conscious of their economic power, they make their own history" and so revolution "means a fundamental social and economic change, something which has its
roots in the needs and hopes of the people and which must not end until the disinherited of the earth come into their own. In a word, the Russian people saw in the overthrow of the
autocracy the beginning and not the finale of the Revolution." For the toiler, the Russian Revolution "can mean nothing . . . unless it sets the land fee and joins to the dethroned
Tsar his partner, the dethroned land-owner, the capitalist." ["The Truth About the Bolsheviki", Writings of Emma Goldman, p. 163 and p. 165]

So when Victor Serge, like McNally, stated that by concluding the "self-evident truth" that "the Russian Revolution cannot confine itself to changing the political order" in 1917
but that it had to take in "a social character" by expropriating capital and land he was unknowingly "on the line" advocated by Lenin we must remember that this was not "the line"
pioneered by Trotsky but rather the one raised by Kropotkin and other anarchists during the 1905 revolution (and rejected at the time by all Marxists) and that this had been argued
for since the late 1860s by Bakunin and other libertarians. [Memoirs of a Revolutionary, p. 60]

This confusion associated with Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism was also present in Lenin. Given that anarchism is apparently associated with the petty-bourgeois we find a
strange contradiction in Lenin's work. On the one hand Lenin argued that Russia "despite the more petty-bourgeois composition of her population as compared with the other European
countries" anarchist influence was "negligible during the two revolutions (of 1905 and 1917)". The lack of influence in Russia, he claimed, was due to Bolshevism having "waged
a most ruthless and uncompromising struggle against opportunism" for anarchism was "a penalty for the opportunist sins of the working-class movement." On the other he admitted
that, in the developed capitalist nations, syndicalism was "a profoundly proletarian and mass movement" and that it is "the duty of all Communists to do everything to help all
proletarian mass elements to abandon anarchism . . . the measure in which genuinely Communist parties succeed in winning mass proletarian elements . . . away from anarchism, is a
criterion of the success of those Parties." [Collected Works, vol. 31, p. 31, p. 32, p. 200 and p. 201]

Thus, in the most capitalist nations, ones with a more widespread and developed proletariat, the anarchist and syndicalist movements were more firmly developed and had closer
connections with the masses than in Russia. Moreover, these movements were also quite revolutionary as well and should be won to Bolshevism. But anarchism is the politics of the
petit-bourgeois and so should have been far smaller in Western countries than in Russia due to the larger numbers of artisans and peasants in the latter. The opposite was the case,
thus suggesting that Lenin's analysis is wrong.

We can point to another explanation of these facts. Rather than the Bolsheviks "struggle against opportunism" being the reason why anarchism was "negligible" in 1917-18 in Russia
(it was not, in fact) but had mass appeal in Western Europe perhaps it was the fact that anarchism was a product of working class struggle in advanced capitalist countries while
Bolshevism was a product of bourgeois struggle (for Parliament, a liberal republic, etc.) in Tsarist Russia? Similarly, perhaps the reason why Bolshevism did not develop the same
opportunist tendencies as in other Social-Democratic movements was because it did not work in an environment which encouraged them. After all, unlike the German Social Democrats,
the Bolsheviks were illegal for long periods of time and worked in an absolutist monarchy. The influences that corrupted the German Social Democrats were not at work in the Tsarist
regime simply because there was no genuine Parliamentarianism for the party to get corrupted by. Thus, Bolshevism, perhaps at best, was applicable to Tsarist conditions and
anarchism to Western ones.

However, contrary to Lenin, Russian anarchism was far from "negligible" during 1917-18 and was growing in influence within the Russian working class which was the real reason
why the Bolsheviks suppressed them before the start of the civil war. As Emma Goldman noted, a claim such as Lenin's "does not tally with the incessant persecution of Anarchists
which began in [April] 1918, when Leon Trotsky liquidated the Anarchist headquarters in Moscow with machine guns. At that time the process of elimination of the Anarchists began."
[Trotsky Protests Too Much", Writings of Emma Goldman, p. 265] This fact of anarchist influence during the revolution does not contradict our earlier analysis. This is because the
Russian anarchists, rather than appealing to the petit-bourgeois, were influencing exactly the same workers, sailors and soldiers the Bolsheviks were. Indeed, the Bolsheviks often
had to radicalise their activities and rhetoric to counter anarchist influence. As Alexander Rabinowitch in his study of the July uprising of 1917 notes:

    "At the rank-and-file level, particularly within the [Petrograd] garrison and at the Kronstadt naval base, there was in fact very little to distinguish Bolshevik from Anarchist
    . . . The Anarchist-Communists and the Bolsheviks competed for the support of the same uneducated, depressed and dissatisfied elements of the population, and the fact is
    that in the summer of 1917, the Anarchist-Communists, with the support they enjoyed in a few important factories and regiments, possessed an undeniable capacity to influence
    the course of events. Indeed, the Anarchist appeal was great enough in some factories and military units to influence the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves." [Prelude to
    Revolution, p. 64]

This is hardly what would be expected if anarchism was "petit-bourgeois" as Marxists assert.

It could, in fact, be argued that the Bolsheviks gained the support of so many workers during the summer of 1917 because they sounded and acted like anarchists and not like
Marxists and lost it, by the summer of 1918, because, once in power, they reverted to acting like Marxists and their centralised policies were simply not solving the problems
facing the revolution. At the time many considered the Bolsheviks as anarchists and one fellow Marxist (an ex-Bolshevik turned Menshevik) thought Lenin had "made himself a
candidate for one European throne that has been vacant for thirty years -- the throne of Bakunin!" [quoted by Rabinowitch, Op. Cit., p. 40] As Alexander Berkman argued, the
"Anarchist mottoes proclaimed by the Bolsheviks did not fail to bring results. The masses relied to their flag." [What is Anarchism?, p. 120] Indeed, as we note in section H.5.12,
the Bolshevik party in the summer of 1917 was far from the disciplined vanguard party of Leninist myth and far more like a federation of local groups which could -- and did --
ignore the party's central committee and its conservatism. It was in 1918, faced with the realities of holding state power in the face of popular discontent and counter-revolution
that Lenin's long desired model of a centralised, top-down, disciplined party came to be -- a development which contributed to the degeneration of the regime away from socialism
and towards state capitalism.

Moreover, this stealing of anarchist slogans and tactics in 1917 was forced upon the Bolsheviks by the working class. On Lenin's own admission, the masses of peasants and workers
were "a hundred times further to the left" than the Bolsheviks. Trotsky himself notes that the Bolsheviks "lagged behind the revolutionary dynamic . . . The masses at the turning
point were a hundred times to the left of the extreme left party." [History of the Russian Revolution, Vol. 1, p. 403f] Indeed, one leading Bolshevik stated in June 1917 (in
response to a rise in anarchist influence), "[b]y fencing ourselves off from the Anarchists, we may fence ourselves off from the masses." [quoted by Rabinowitch, Op. Cit., p. 102]
That, in itself, indicates the weakness of Lenin's class analysis of anarchism.

Rather than the Russian experience refute the claim that anarchism is a working class theory, it reinforces it -- the Bolsheviks would not have succeeded if they had used
traditional Marxist slogans and tactics (as was the fate of the Mensheviks). Instead, much to the dismay of their more orthodox comrades, the Bolsheviks embraced traditional
anarchist ideas and tactics and thereby gained increased influence in the working class. After the Bolshevik seizure of power in the name of the soviets, anarchist influence
increased as more working people recognised that what the Bolsheviks meant by their slogans was different than what working people thought they meant (see section A.5.4). So
the experience of the Russian Revolution re-enforces the fact that Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism fails to convince. Far from proving that libertarian socialism is
non-proletarian, that Revolution proved that it was: just as it confirmed the prophetic correctness of the views of the founders of anarchism and, in particular, their critique of
Marxism.

To conclude, the usual Marxist "class analysis" of anarchism is somewhat confused. On the one hand, it claims that anarchism is backward looking and the politics of the
petit-bourgeois being destroyed by the rise and development of capitalism. On the other hand Marxists point to events and organisations created in working class struggle which were
predicted and/or influenced by anarchist ideas and ideals, not Marxist ones. That indicates better than any other argument that Marxists are wrong about anarchism and their "class
analysis" nothing more than distortions and bigotry. Based on the evidence and the contradictions it provokes in Marxist ideology, we have to argue that McNally is simply wrong.
Rather than being an ideology of the petit-bourgeois anarchism is, in fact, a political theory of the working class (artisans, peasants and proletariat). Rather than a backward
looking theory, anarchism is a theory of the present and future -- it has a concrete and radical critique of current society, a vision of the future and a theory how to get there
which appeals to working people in struggle. Such is obviously the conclusion when you read anarchist theory and see how Marxists have appropriated aspects of it which they had
previously denounced. Sadly, as we note in section H.3.5, this appropriation has been selective and had not made Leninism any more libertarian, its pre-revolution rhetoric aside.

13. If Marxism is "socialism from below," why do anarchists reject it?

McNally claims that Marxism is "socialism from below." In his text he indicates support for the Paris Commune and the soviets of the Russian Revolution. He states that the
"democratic and socialist restructuring of society remains . . . the most pressing task confronting humanity. And such a reordering of society can only take place on the basis
of the principles of socialism from below. Now more than ever, the liberation of humanity depends upon the self-emancipation of the world working class. . . The challenge is to
restore to socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human freedom."

So, if this is the case, why the hostility between anarchists and Marxists? Surely it is a question of semantics? No, for while Leninists pay lip-service to such developments of
working class self-activity and self-organisation as workers' councils (soviets), factory committees, workers' control, revocable and mandated delegates they do so in order to
ensure the election of their party into positions of power (i.e. the government). Rather than see such developments as working people's direct management of their own destinies
and as a means of creating a self-managed (i.e. free) society as anarchists do, Leninists see them as a means for their party to take over state power. Nor do they see them as a
framework by which working class people can take back control of their own lives. Rather, they see them, at best, as typical bourgeois forms -- namely the means by which working
people can delegate their power to a new group of leaders, i.e. as a means to elect a socialist government into power. The nature of the regimes they wish to create are centralised
in nature, so reducing meaningful democracy to picking a few leaders and, even worse, producing the natural conditions under which a bureaucracy can flourish -- both conditions for
creating a new ruling elite (the bureaucracy).

This attitude can be seen from Lenin's perspectives on the Russian soviets during the 1905 Russian Revolution. Rather than seeing them as a means of working class self-government,
he saw them purely as a means of gaining influence for his party:

    "the Party . . . has never renounced its intention of utilising certain non-party organisations, such as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies . . . to extend Social-Democratic
    influence among the working class and to strengthen the Social-Democratic labour movement . . . the incipient revival creates the opportunity to organise or utilise non-party
    working-class institutions, such as Soviets . . . for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic movement; at the same time the Social-Democratic Party organisations must
    bear in mind if Social-Democratic activities among the proletarian masses are properly, effectively and widely organised, such institutions may actually become superfluous."
    [Collected Works, vol. 12, pp. 143-4]

Such a perspective indicates well the difference between anarchism and Leninism. Anarchists do not seek power for their own organisations. Rather they see self-managed organisation
created by working class people in struggle as a means of eliminating hierarchy within society, of directly involving the mass of people in the decisions that affect them. In other
words, as a means of creating the organisations through which people can change both themselves and the world by their own direct action and the managing of their own struggles,
lives, communities and workplaces. Leninists view working class self-organisation as a means of gaining power for their own party (which they identify with the power of the working
class -- see section H.3.11). Mass organisations, which could be schools for self-management and freedom, are instead subjected to an elitist leadership of intellectual ideologues.
The party soon substitutes itself for the mass movement, and the party leadership substitutes itself the party. This is the inevitable result of a vision of socialism rooted in
being "fully and unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of centralism." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 116]

Lenin's view of the soviets was instrumental: he regarded them merely as a means of getting the workers to support the Bolshevik Party and ensuring his party seized state power.
Indeed, he constantly confused soviet power with party power, seeing the former as the means to the latter and the latter as the key to creating socialism (see section H.3.11).
Given his vanguardist ideology (see section H.5) this is unsurprising and, indeed, understandable -- flawed assumptions will produce incorrect conclusions. What is missing from his
vision is the idea of socialism as being based on working class self-activity, self-management, self-government and, ultimately, self-emancipation (section 11 refutes McNally's
claims that Leninism is based on working class self-emanicipation). "Lenin" as one historian concluded, "believed that the transition to socialism was guaranteed ultimately,
not by the self-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state power." [A. S. Smith, Red Petrograd, pp. 261-2] Worse, the 'proletarian' character of the state
was determined by the party in government and, as we indicated in section 8, the party determined what was and was not "proletarian" so allowing -- indeed, justifying -- party
dictatorship. This gap in his politics, this confusion of party with class, helped undermine the revolution and create the dictatorship of the bureaucracy. Little wonder that by
the end of 1918, the Bolsheviks ruled the newly established soviet state entirely alone and had turned the soviets into docile instruments of their party apparatus rather than
forms of working class self-government. Perhaps needless to say, this reality came to be reflected in Bolshevik ideology and the assertion that a socialist revolution required a
party dictatorship was embedded into it at this time -- where it remained (Trotsky, for example, arguing this position throughout the 1920s and 1930s, as shown in section 15).

So despite its radical language, Leninism is totally opposed to the nature of revolt and rebellion. It seeks to undermine what makes these activities and the organisations they
create potentially revolutionary (their tendencies towards self-management, decentralisation, solidarity, direct action, free activity and co-operation) by using them to build
the party and, ultimately, a centralised, hierarchical state structure on the corpse of these once revolutionary forms of working class self-organisation and self-activity. This
applies both to the social organisations of the working class and to their economic ones as Leninists view nationalisation (i.e., state ownership and control) as the basis of
socialism rather than, as anarchists do, socialisation and workers self-management of production. The Leninist position can only produce a new ruling class (the bureaucracy) in a
new class system (state capitalism). As Kropotkin predicted:

    "The state organisation, having always been . . . the instrument for establishing monopolies in favour of the ruling minorities, cannot be made to work for the destruction
    of these monopolies. The anarchists consider, therefore, that to hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life -- the land, the mines, the railways,
    banking, insurance, and so on -- as also the management of all the main branches of industry, in addition to all the functions already accumulated in its hands (education,
    state-supported religions, defence of the territory, etc.), would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and
    capitalism. True progress lies in the direction of decentralisation, both territorial and functional, in the development of the spirit of local and personal initiative, and of
    free federation from the simple to the compound, in lieu of the present hierarchy from the centre to the periphery." [Direct Struggle Against Capital, pp. 164-5]

While Leninists point to Lenin's The State and Revolution as proof of Leninism's "socialism from below" credentials, anarchists note that, firstly, its promises were either not
applied or quickly abandoned and, secondly, its vision of socialism is impoverished. As we discuss the first objection in section H.1.7, we will note here that Lenin's work
postulated a centralised proletarian state rooted in representative rather than delegate institutions as well as a "socialism" modelled on capitalist institutions which the
workers were expected to "control" rather than self-management of production. Thus Lenin's pointing to the postal service, in which workers are usually employed by the State
under capitalism, as "an example of the socialist economic system" and argued that we needed to "organise the whole economy on the lines of the postal service" simply transferred
economic power to the state bureaucracy. [ Collected Works, vol. 25 pp. 426-7] Anarchists, in contrast, argue that working class bodies like trade unions must take into their
"hands the management of production" and co-operatives "for production and for distribution, both in industry and agriculture" were expressing aspects of "communist society" for
"Socialist forms of life could find a much easier realisation" by means of these bodies "than by a State organisation". [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 22-23] As Maurice Brinton
documents in great detail in his classic The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, the Leninist vision of socialism was never based on workers management of the economy (see section
H.3.14). Politically, the Bolsheviks placed an executive power (their own) over the soviets and so centralised power into the hands of a few party leaders.

So as well as differences in the political nature of a socialist society, the role of organisations created in, by and for the class struggle and the nature of socialist
organisation, anarchists and Marxists disagree with the economic nature of the future society. McNally claims that in Russia "[c]ontrol of the factories was taken over by the
workers" but this is a total distortion of what actually happened. Throughout 1917, it was the workers themselves, not the Bolshevik Party, which raised the issue of workers'
self-management and control. As S.A. Smith puts it, the "factory committees launched the slogan of workers' control of production quite independently of the Bolshevik party. It was
not until May that the party began to take it up." [Op. Cit., p. 154] Given that the defining aspect of capitalism is wage labour, the Russian workers' raised a clearly socialist
demand that entailed its abolition. It was the Bolshevik party, we must note, who failed to raise above a "trade union conscious" in this and so many other cases and, worse, they
hindered the movement of workers trying to control, and then manage, the factories they worked in. As Maurice Brinton correctly argued, "it is ridiculous to claim -- as so many do
today -- that in 1917 the Bolsheviks really stood for the full, total and direct control by working people of the factories, mines, building sites or other enterprises in which
they worked, i.e. that they stood for workers' self-management." ["The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", For Workers' Power, p. 328] Rather, Lenin identified "workers' control" as
something totally different:

    "When we say: 'workers' control', always juxtaposing this slogan to dictatorship of the proletariat, always putting it immediately after the latter, we thereby explain
    what kind of state we mean . . . if we are speaking of a proletarian state, that is, of the proletarian dictatorship, then workers' control can become the country-wide,
    all-embracing, omnipresent, most precise and most conscientious accounting of the production and distribution of goods." [Collected Works, vol. 26, p. 105]

By this Lenin meant the "power" to oversee the books, to check the implementation of decisions made by others, rather than fundamental decision making by the workers themselves.
As he argued, when "the proletariat is victorious it will do the following, it will set economists, engineers, agronomists, and so forth, to work under the control of the workers'
organisations on drawing up a 'plan', on verifying it, on devising labour-saving methods of centralisation, on devising the simplest, cheapest, most convenient and universal
measures and methods of control. For this we shall pay the economists, statisticians and technicians good money . . . but we shall not give them anything to eat if they do not
perform this work conscientiously and entirely in the interests of the working people." "The important thing," he stressed "will not be even the confiscation of the capitalists'
property, but country-wide, all-embracing workers' control over the capitalists and their possible supporters . . . by the workers' control of the workers' state." The economy
would be state-run based on the structures inherited from capitalism: "Compulsory syndication, i.e., compulsory amalgamation in associations under state control -- this is what
capitalism has prepared the way for" [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 118, pp. 107-8 and p. 108] Thus others -- a few planners at the top of a centralised state -- would determine the
plans, not the workers themselves, and primarily the "control" would be exercised over the capitalists whom Lenin thought should remain in position for an indefinite period after
the revolution. Rather than workers' managing their own workplaces and economy Leninism meant "the organisation of really democratic control, i.e., control from 'below', control
by the workers and the poor peasants over the capitalists" [Op. Cit., vol. 25, p.353] Unsurprisingly, then, in 1922, he even suggested granting legislative power to the State
Planning Commission to ensure its decisions "could not be rejected by ordinary procedure in Soviet bodies, but would need a special procedure to be reconsidered" as it was "a body
of experienced people, experts, representatives of science and technology" and so was "actually in a better position to form a correct judgment of affairs". [Op. Cit., vol. 36, p.
598]

So Lenin's commitment to workers' control was limited and as Maurice Brinton correctly summarised:

    "Nowhere in Lenin's writings is workers' control ever equated with fundamental decision-taking (i.e. with the initiation of decisions) relating to production . . . He
    envisioned a period during which, in a workers state, the bourgeois would still retain the formal ownership and effective management of most of the productive apparatus . . .
    capitalists would be coerced into co-operation. 'Workers' control' was seen as the instrument of this coercion." [Op. Cit., pp. 314-5]

Thus the capitalists would remain and wage slavery would continue but workers could "control" those who had the real power and gave the orders (the capitalists were later replaced
by "one-man management" by state bureaucrats but the lack of effective power remained -- see section H.3.14). In other words, no vision of workers' self-management in production
(and so real socialism) and the reduction of "socialism" to a warmed up variation of state capitalism with (in theory, but not in practice) a dash of liberal democracy in the form
of "control" of those with the real power by those under them in the hierarchy. This is to be expected because, as S.A. Smith correctly argues, Lenin's proposals were "thoroughly
statist and centralist in character" and that he used "the term ['workers' control'] in a very different sense from that of the factory committees." [Op. Cit., p. 154] As can be
seen from McNally's pamphlet, Leninists still follow this tradition and hide the grim reality that their tradition advocates an economic regime drastically different from the
workers' self-management their words imply to most readers. Using the same slogans as others ("workers' control" or "socialism from below", for example) but meaning something
radically different by it can only bred confusion.

Given Lenin's lack of concern about the revolutionising of the relations of production (a lack not shared by the Russian workers, we must stress) it is hardly surprising that
Lenin considered the first task of the Bolshevik revolution was to build state capitalism. "State capitalism," he wrote, "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the
threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no gaps". [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 259] The aim was to ensure
that "[a]ll citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state" and the "whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labour and
pay." [Op. Cit., vol. 25, pp. 473-4] For Lenin, the "domination of the proletariat consists in the fact that the landowners and capitalists have been deprived of their property .
. . The victorious proletariat has abolished property . . . and therein lies its domination as a class. The prime thing is the question of property." [Op. Cit., vol. 30, p. 456]
Hence his support for centralisation and "one-man management" -- if the issue is property then working class power in production cannot be considered as a necessary condition
for socialism. Little wonder Soviet Russia never progressed beyond state capitalism -- it could not as the fundamental aspect of capitalism, wage labour, was never replaced by
workers' self-management of production. Lenin, in short, was firmly in the same tradition as those "certain utopians" whose call that "the Government seize trade, industry and
agriculture, to add them to its attributes and to make the French nation a nation of wage-workers" Proudhon rejected during the 1848 revolution as "expropriation by the State" was
"still wage-labour." [Property is Theft!, p. 22 and p. 377]

Writing in May 1917, Lenin took the viewpoint that state capitalism "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism" and so socialism "is nothing
but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly." It is "merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent
ceased to be capitalist monopoly." [Op. Cit., vol. 25, p. 359 and p. 358] Rather than seeing "workers' control" as workers managing production directly by means of their own class
organisations, he always saw it in terms of workers' "controlling" those who did within institutions inherited from capitalism. It simply meant "the country-wide, all-embracing,
omnipresent, most precise and most conscientious accounting of the production and distribution of goods." He clarified what he meant, arguing for "country-wide, all-embracing
workers' control over the capitalists" who would still manage production. Significantly, he considered that "as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" required for
this "country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods" would be achieved by nationalising the "big banks," which "are the 'state
apparatus' which we need to bring about socialism" (indeed, this was considered "something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society"). This structure would be taken
intact from capitalism for "the modern state possesses an apparatus which has extremely close connection with the banks and [business] syndicates . . . this apparatus must not, and
should not, be smashed." [Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 105, p. 107, p. 106 and pp. 105-6] He had no real notion of workers' self-management of production nor of the impossibilities of
combining the centralised state capitalist system with its big banks, monopolies, big business with genuine rank and file control, never mind self-management.

As discussed in section H.6.2, this was what the Bolsheviks did do, using the institutions inherited from Tsarism as framework for "socialism". They believed that this economic
structure would be made to serve the many rather than the few by a change in the political regime for "given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism
inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!" [Op. Cit., vol. 25, pp. 357-8] Yet a centralised state (never mind party dictatorship!) is
hardly "a really revolutionary-democratic" anything other than in Bolshevik rhetoric. Surely, then, such an centralised economic structure would simply become a step, and more than
a step, towards rule by the bureaucracy? And, sadly, that was the case so confirming anarchist warnings that state socialism would produce a new class system with the bureaucracy
replacing the capitalist elite.

Yet even this is too generous, given the two obvious flaws in Lenin's position. First, in-so-far-as a social organisation is "revolutionary-democratic" then it is not a state
and, as Lenin's regime showed, any new state will not remain so for long. Second, Lenin seems to have forgotten the Marxist theory of base and superstructure. The base is the
economic forces and relations of production while the superstructure is the culture, institutions and state. In Marxist theory, while some mutual influences are sometimes admitted,
the base determines the superstructure. Given this, surely an economic structure created under a class system would be far more likely to produce an undemocratic superstructure
(state) than the opposite? Surely a centralised economic structure would produce concentrations of economic and bureaucratic power and so it would be far more consistent for a
Marxist to suggest a centralised economic base (and "state-monopoly capitalism" can be nothing less) would produce an equally centralised political superstructure (state)? And
so it came to be -- "state-monopoly capitalism" inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards a new class system (state-capitalism) rather than a
classless one (socialism). Although, to be fair to Lenin, Marx and Engels were equally untroubled by this danger and did not draw this obvious conclusion. Anarchists were not so
naive. As Alexander Berkman correctly argued:

    "The role of industrial decentralisation in the revolution is unfortunately too little appreciated . . . Most people are still in the thraldom of the Marxian dogma that
    centralisation is 'more efficient and economical.' They close their eyes to the fact that the alleged 'economy' is achieved at the cost of the workers' limb and life, that
    the 'efficiency' degrades him to a mere industrial cog, deadens his soul, kills his body. Furthermore, in a system of centralisation the administration of industry becomes
    constantly merged in fewer hands, producing a powerful bureaucracy of industrial overlords. It would indeed be the sheerest irony if the revolution were to aim at such a
    result. It would mean the creation of a new master class." [ What is Anarchism?, p. 229]

The Leninist "vision" of the future socialist economy is one of a highly centralised organisation, modelled on capitalism, in which, at best, workers can supervise the decisions
made by others and "control" those in power. It is a vision of a more democratic corporate structure, with the workers replacing the shareholders. In practice, it would be a new
bureaucracy exploiting and oppressing those who do the actual work -- as in private capitalism -- simply because capitalist economic structures are designed to empower the few
over the many. Like the capitalist state, they cannot be used by the working class to achieve their liberation (they are not created for the mass participation that real socialism
requires, quite the reverse in fact). Sadly, Lenin failed to understand this and called the centralised, bureaucratic monstrosity the Bolsheviks created "socialism".

In contrast, anarchists view the socialist economy as being based on workers' self-management of production and the workplace turned into an association of equals. Above the
individual workplace, federations of factory committees would co-ordinate activities and ensure wide scale co-operation is achieved. Thus anarchists see a new form of economic
structure developing, one based on workers' organisations created in the process of struggle against capitalism. Rather than embrace bourgeois notions of "democracy" (i.e. the
election of leaders into positions of power) like Marxists do, anarchists dissolve hierarchical power by promoting workers' self-management and association. While Marxism ends up
as state capitalism pure and simple (as can be seen by the experience of Russia under Lenin and then Stalin) anarchism destroys the fundamental social relation of capitalism --
wage labour -- via association and workers' self-management of production.

So while both Leninists and anarchists claim to support factory committees and "workers' control" we have decidedly different notions of what we mean by this. The Leninists see
them as a means of workers' to supervise (a closer translation of the Russian expression) those who have the real power in the economy and so perpetuate wage slavery with the state
replacing the capitalist. Anarchists, in contrast, see them as a means of expressing workers self-organisation, self-management and self-government -- as a means of abolishing
wage slavery and so capitalism by eliminating hierarchical authority. The difference could not be more striking. Indeed, it would be correct to state that the Leninist tradition
is not, in fact, socialist as it identifies socialism as the natural development of capitalism and not as a new form of economy which will develop away from capitalism by means of
associated labour and workers' self-management of production (see section H.3.12).

So anarchists and Leninism may often use similar words and expressions but they aim for different things. Leninists seek party power over a state capitalist economy and favour
centralised political and economic structures. Sadly, they seem unaware that this will simply generate a new ruling class, the bureaucracy as centralised structures mean placing
power at the top of society. The new layer of rulers this produces need the means to enforce their decisions and to gather and process the information needed to make their
decisions, which is why bureaucracy grows. However, by the nature of bureaucracy the servants of the government quickly become the masters due to their control over information,
resources and so on. This is why anarchists advocate federalism, to combat the obvious dangers of centralisation. The Bolshevik regime confirmed the wisdom of the libertarian
position as the new state soon saw a new bureaucratic system quickly emerge around it. The size and power of the bureaucracy "grew by leaps and bounds. Control over the new
bureaucracy constantly diminished, partly because no genuine opposition existed. The alienation between 'people' and 'officials,' which the soviet system was supposed to remove,
was back again. Beginning in 1918, complaints about 'bureaucratic excesses,' lack of contact with voters, and new proletarian bureaucrats grew louder and louder." [Oskar Anweiler,
The Soviets, p. 242] So the rise of a state bureaucracy started immediately with the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks, particularly as the state's functions grew to include
economic as well as political ones. Instead of the state starting to "wither away" it grew:

    "The old state's political apparatus was 'smashed,' but in its place a new bureaucratic and centralised system emerged with extraordinary rapidity. After the transfer of
    government to Moscow in March 1918 it continued to expand . . . As the functions of the state expanded so did the bureaucracy, and by August 1918 nearly a third of Moscow's
    working population were employed in offices. The great increase in the number of employees . . . took place in early to mid-1918 and, thereafter, despite many campaigns to
    reduce their number, they remained a steady proportion of the falling population" [Richard Sakwa, "The Commune State in Moscow in 1918," pp. 429-449, Slavic Review, vol. 46,
    no. 3/4, pp. 437-8]

While Lenin started to be concerned about the growth of the bureaucracy after 1920 and Trotsky argued that the Stalinist regime rested on this caste, neither had the theoretical
framework to understand exactly why and how the centralisation and statist structures they favoured produced the bureaucracy they denounced. By not understanding the need for
federalism they ensured that the socialistic tendencies being built by the Russian people were crushed under the weight of the bureaucratic machine which centralisation needs to
function. That this bureaucracy soon became the ruling class is as unsurprising as Trotsky's inability to recognise the state capitalist nature of Stalinism (nor his and Lenin's
role in producing such a regime in the first place).

Russia, Lenin once said, "was accustomed to being ruled by 150 000 land owners. Why can 240 000 Bolsheviks not take over the task?" [Op. Cit., vol. 21, p. 336] The idea of
socialism as working class self-management and self-government was lost on him -- and the possibility real socialism was soon lost to the Russian working class when the Tsar was
replaced by the autocratic the rule of the Bolshevik Party. "Workers' power" cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party -- as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks
(and Social Democrats before them).

Thus Malatesta's comments that the "important, fundamental dissension" between anarchists and Marxists is that the latter "are authoritarians, anarchists are libertarians. Marxists
"want power . . . and once in power wish to impose their programme on the people . . . Anarchists instead maintain, that government cannot be other than harmful, and by its very
nature it defends either an existing privileged class or creates a new one." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 142] Therefore anarchists seek to influence people by the
power of our ideas within popular organisations. We see such organisations as the means by which working people can take control of their own lives and start to create a free,
libertarian socialist society -- in other words, as we sketch in section I.2.3, the structures of a free society are created in the struggle against hierarchy today and, moreover,
people become able to govern themselves by the very process of that struggle. A self-managed society can only be created by self-management, in short, and any tendencies to
undermine popular self-management in favour of hierarchical power of a party will subvert a revolution and create an end drastically at odds with the ideals of those who take part
in it.

Similarly, anarchists reject the Leninist idea of highly centralised "vanguard" parties. As the anarchists of Trotwatch explain, such a party leaves much to be desired:

    "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]

As we discuss in section H.5.9, such an organisation can never create a socialist society. In contrast, anarchists argue that socialist organisations should reflect as much as
possible the future society we are aiming to create (see section H.1.6. To build organisations which are statist/capitalistic in structure cannot do other than reproduce the very
problems of statism/ capitalism into them and so undermine their liberatory potential. As Murray Bookchin put it:

    "The 'glorious party,' when there is one, almost invariably lags behind the events . . . In the beginning . . . it tends to have an inhibitory function, 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 . . . Its membership is schooled in obedience . . . The party's leadership, in turn, is schooled in
    habits born of command, authority, manipulation . . . Its leaders . . . lose contact with the living situation below. The local groups, which know their own immediate situation
    better than any remote leaders, are obliged to subordinate their insights to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct knowledge of local problems, responds
    sluggishly and prudently . . .

    "The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation. Although everyone marches
    in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns -- as they do in all revolutions. The party is efficient in only
    one respect -- in moulding society in its own hierarchical imagine if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It fosters the
    bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by
    the 'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state -- and a party to 'guard' it." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 123-6]

As we argue in section J.3, anarchists do not reject the need for political organisations (anarchist groups, federations and so on) to work in mass movements and in revolutionary
situations. However, we do reject the Leninist idea of a vanguard party as being totally inappropriate for the needs of a social revolution -- a revolution that aims to create a
free society.

In short, anarchists reject both the means and the ends Leninists aim for and so our disagreements with that tradition is far more than semantics. Simply put, for anarchists
Leninism is not "socialism from below" but rather a centralised, top-down movement aiming for a centralised, top-down state capitalist system.

This does not mean that all members of Leninist parties do not support workers' self-management in society and production and some genuinely seem to favour workers' democracy and
actually do believe in working class self-emancipation, etc. They are simply unaware that the tradition they have joined does not actually share those values (thanks to, it must
be stated, works like McNally's). It could, perhaps, be argued that such values can be "added" to the core Leninist ideas. However, such a viewpoint is optimistic in the extreme.
Leninist positions on workers' self-management, etc., do not "just happen" nor are they the product of ignorance. Rather they are the natural result of those "core" ideas. To add
other values to Leninism would be like adding extensions to a house built on sand -- the foundations are unsuitable and any additions would soon fall down. This was what happened
during the Russian Revolution -- movements from below which had a different vision of socialism came to grief on the rocks of Bolshevik power. Simply put, adding self-management to
a centralised system and party power is impossible and if we strip Leninism of all its authoritarian notions then we would simply have anarchism.

So as we discuss in section H.3.1, while there appears to be some similarity between the aims of anarchism and Marxism (namely a free classless society of free and equal
individuals) on closer look there are significant differences between the two and only anarchism truly represents "socialism from below" (as we will see next section, we have
been talking about "from below" since the 1840s while Marxist use of the terminology dates from much later). This is no coincidence.. Moreover, as shown in section H.6.2, these
differences are important as Bolshevik ideology, once its advocates held power at the top of a centralises state structure and started to apply it, impacted negatively on the
Russian revolution and ensured its failure (i.e., it was not creating socialism even if a self-proclaimed "communist" party remained in power at the end of the civil war in 1920).
The issue is clear -- either you aim for a socialist society and use socialist methods to get there or you do not. Those who do seek real socialism (as opposed to warmed up state
capitalism) would be advised to recognise this and study closely what Leninists actually mean by the slogans they use rather than taking them at face value.

14. Why is McNally's use of the term "socialism from below" dishonest?

McNally argues that Marxism can be considered as "socialism from below." Indeed, that is the name of his pamphlet. However, his use of the term is somewhat ironic for two reasons.
First, because the expression "from below" can be found in the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon, not Marx. Second, because Lenin explicitly attacked the idea of "from below" as an
anarchist principle.

In terms of the first point, the expression "from below" was constantly on the lips of Bakunin and Proudhon. Indeed, it was a defining part of their ideas. Thus we find Proudhon
attacking the state socialism of Louis Blanc in 1846 because he "is never tired of appealing to authority, and socialism loudly declares itself anarchistic; M. Blanc places power
above society, and socialism tends to subordinate it to society; M. Blanc makes social life descend from above, and socialism maintains that it springs up and grows from below" [
Property is Theft!, p. 205] He re-iterated this during the 1848 revolution:

    "From above . . . signifies power; from below signifies the people. On the one hand we have the actions of government; on the other, the initiative of the masses . . .
    revolution from above is . . . inevitably revolution according to the whims of the Prince, the arbitrary judgement of a minister, the fumblings of an Assembly or the violence
    of a club: it is a revolution of dictatorship and despotism . . . Revolution on the initiative of the masses is a revolution by the concerted action of the citizens, by
    the experience of the workers, by the progress and diffusion of enlightenment, revolution by the means of liberty . . . a revolution from below, from true democracy . . .
    Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Cabet, Louis Blanc, all believers in the organisation of labour by the State, by Capital, by whatever authority, appealed . . . to revolution from
    above. Instead of teaching the people how to organise themselves, by calling on their experience and their reasoning, they demanded Power . . .

    "The conclusion is that government can never be revolutionary quite simply because it is government. Society alone, the masses armed with their intelligence, can create
    revolution; society alone is able to deploy all its spontaneity, to analyse and explain the mystery of its destiny and its origin, to change its faith and its philosophy,
    because it alone is capable of fighting against its originator and bearing its fruit. Governments are God’s scourge, established to discipline the world: do you really expect
    them to destroy themselves, to create freedom, to make revolution?

    "They cannot act otherwise. All revolutions . . . were achieved by the spontaneity of the people: governments have always hindered, always suppressed, always beaten back; they
    have never created revolution. Their role is not to create change but to control it." [Op. Cit., pp. 398-9]

Thus "experience testifies and philosophy demonstrates . . . that any revolution, to be effective, must be spontaneous and emanate, not from the heads of the authorities but from
the bowels of the people: that government is reactionary rather than revolutionary: that it could not have any expertise in revolutions, given that society, to which that secret is
alone revealed, does not show itself through legislative decree but rather through the spontaneity of its manifestations: that, ultimately, the only connection between government
and labour is that labour, in organising itself, has the abrogation of government as its mission". [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1., p. 52] "The Revolution from above," Proudhon
stressed, "is the intervention of power in everything; it is the absolutist initiative of the State, the pure governmentalism of . . . [state-socialist] Louis Blanc. The Revolution
from above is the negation of collective activity, of popular spontaneity . . . What serious and lasting Revolution was not made from below, by the people? How did the Revolution
of 1789 come about? How was that of February made? The Revolution from above has never been other than the oppression of the wills of those below." [quoted by George Woodcock,
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 143]

Proudhon, then, placed his hopes for introducing socialism in alternative institutions created by working class people themselves and "insisted that the revolution could only come
from below, through the action of the workers themselves." [K. Steven Vincent, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and the Rise of French Republican Socialism, p. 157] Bakunin did likewise,
seeing the labour movement as the means of ensuring that an anarchist revolution would come "from below." As he put it, "liberty can be created only by liberty, by an insurrection
of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179] Elsewhere he wrote that "future social organisation must be made
solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation,
international and universal." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206] As he wrote in 1868:

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

Anarchists, argued Bakunin, opposed the state because "all State rule, all governments being by their very nature placed outside the people, must necessarily seek to subject it
to customs and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare ourselves to be foes . . . of all State organisations as such, and believe that the people can be happy and
free, when, organised from below upwards by means of its own autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life."
[ Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 63] This applied to the so-called "workers' state" because "every state, even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence
only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the
people themselves." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 338] The revolution would see "an end to all masters and to domination of every kind, and the free construction of popular life in
accordance with popular needs, not from above downward, as in the state, but from below upward, by the people themselves, dispensing with all governments and parliaments -- a
voluntary alliance of agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, provinces, and nations; and, finally, . . . universal human brotherhood triumphing on the ruins of all
the states." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 33]

No such idea is present in Marx. Rather, he saw a revolution as consisting of the election of a socialist party into government. At its best, for example when he was reporting
on the Paris Commune, this vision had libertarian ("from below") aspects -- perhaps unsurprisingly, given its obviously Proudhon-inspired federalism (which Marx could not bring
himself to mention). However, at its worse this was not only reformist in the sense of utilising bourgeois elections (see section H.3.10) but also "from above" in nature. In 1850,
for example, he argued that the workers must "not only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the most determined centralisation of
power in the hands of the state authority." This was because "the path of revolutionary activity" can "proceed only from the centre." This meant that the workers must be opposed to
a "federative republic" and "must not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the communities, of self-government, etc." This centralisation of power
was essential to overcome local autonomy, which would allow "every village, every town and every province" to put "a new obstacle in the path" of the revolution due to "local and
provincial obstinacy." Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 509
and p. 547]

As we discuss in section H.3.2, the idea of "socialism from below" is a distinctly anarchist notion, one found in the works of Proudhon and Bakunin, not Marx. It is ironic, given
his distorted account of Proudhon and Bakunin, that McNally uses their words to describe Marxism!

Secondly, and far more seriously for McNally, Lenin repeatedly dismissed the idea of "from below" as not Marxist. In 1904, during the debate over the party split into Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks, Lenin stated that the argument "[b] ureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary
Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible
. . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top downward." [Collected Works, vol. 7,
pp. 396-7] Lenin repeated this argument during the near revolution of 1905, mocking the Mensheviks for only wanting "pressure from below" which was "pressure by the citizens on
the revolutionary government." Instead, he argued for "pressure . . . from above as well as from below," where "pressure from above" was "pressure by the revolutionary government
on the citizens." He notes that Engels "appreciated the importance of action from above" and that he saw the need for "the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental power."
Lenin summarised his position (which he considered as being in line with that of orthodox Marxism) by stating: "Limitation, in principle, of revolutionary action to pressure from
below and renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism." [Op. Cit., vol. 8, p. 474, p. 478, p. 480 and p. 481] He returned to this theme, explicitly stating that it was an
"anarchist stand" to be for "'action only from below', not 'from below and from above'". [Op. Cit., vol. 9, p. 77]

How you can have "socialism from below" when your "organisational principle" is "from the top downward" and "renunciation of pressure also from above is anarchism" is not explained
by McNally. Moreover, given that McNally states repeatedly the evils of "from above" in his pamphlet he gives his account of Marxism a distinctly anarchist feel (while denouncing
it in a most deceitful way). Why is this? Perhaps because his readers would recognise that in a conflict between "pressure from above" (the armed might of the state) and "pressure
from below" (the people) it would be the former which would tend to win? And that this was the case in the Russian Revolution, with the Bolshevik state crushing all forms of
working class protest? As we discuss in section H.6 , the "the utilisation of the revolutionary governmental power" simply produced a "dictatorship over the proletariat" as Bakunin
(see section H.1.1). and other anarchists had long predicted.

In other words, Marxism is based on idea that the government pressuring the citizens is acceptable. As we discuss in the next section, Trotsky recognised this and openly proclaimed
the need for party dictatorship to resist the pressures from below (dismissed as "wavering" and "vacillation" by the backward masses). As we discuss in section H.5, the vanguardism
of Leninism privileges the party and its leadership and lays the foundation for "socialism from below." A given ideological premise will led to certain conclusions in practice --
conclusions Lenin and Trotsky were not shy in explicitly stating.

Little wonder McNally fails to mention Lenin's support for revolutionary action "from above" for in practice Leninism substituted the rule (and then dictatorship) of the party for
that of the working class as a whole. Lenin always stressed that the "Bolsheviks must assume power" and they "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the
question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover,
"a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers." He equated rule by the
party with rule by the class, noting that "proletarian revolutionary power" and "Bolshevik power" are "now one the same thing" and indicated that once in power the Bolsheviks
"shall be fully and unreservedly in favour of a strong state power and of centralism." [ Op. Cit., vol. 26, p. 19, p. 90, p. 179 and p. 116] In this confusion, we must note, Lenin
followed Engels who argued that "each political party sets out to establish its rule in the state, so the German Social-Democratic Workers' Party is striving to establish its
rule, the rule of the working class." [Collected Works, vol. 23, p. 372] Such confusion is deadly to a true "revolution from below" and justifies the use of repression against the
working class based on the advanced ideas of the vanguard party.

McNally, of course, stresses the impact of the civil war on the degeneration of Bolshevism but comments like these were not caused by circumstantial factors as can be seen from
Lenin's work Left-Wing Communism. In this 1920 tract, written for the Second Congress of the Communist International, Lenin lambasted those Marxists who argued for direct working
class power against the idea of party rule (i.e. the various council communists around Europe) and argued that "the Communists' correct understanding of his tasks" lies in
"correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power, when it will be able -- during and after the seizure of power
-- to win adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian working masses, and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate,
and extend its rule by educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the working people." Note, the vanguard (the party) seizes power, not the masses and he stressed
that the "mere presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the party or dictatorship of the class: dictatorship (party) of the leaders or dictatorship (party) of the masses?'
-- testifies to most incredible and hopelessly muddled thinking" and "[t]o go so far . . . as to contrast, in general, the dictatorship of the masses with a dictatorship of the
leaders is ridiculously absurd, and stupid." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 575, p. 567 and p. 568] He then explained the nature of Bolshevik rule:

    "In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses . . . are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organised in the
    Soviets and is guided by the Communist Party . . . The Party, which holds annual congresses . . ., is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the congress, while
    the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by [two] still smaller bodies . . . which are elected at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the
    Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a full-fledged 'oligarchy.' No important political or organisational question is decided by any state institution in
    our republic [sic!] without the guidance of the Party's Central Committee.

    "In its work, the Party relies directly on the trade unions, which . . . have a membership of over four million and are formally non-Party. Actually, all the directing bodies
    of the vast majority of the unions . . . are made up of Communists, and carry out of all the directives of the Party. Thus . . . we have a formally non-communist . . . very
    powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the
    class dictatorship of the class is exercised." [Op. Cit., pp. 571-2]

This was "the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed 'from above,' from the standpoint of the practical realisation of the dictatorship" and so "all this talk
about 'from above' or 'from below,' about 'the dictatorship of leaders' or 'the dictatorship of the masses,'" is "ridiculous and childish nonsense." [Op. Cit., p. 573] The links
with his comments from 1904 and 1905 are clear, as clear as his explanation of the lessons he thought that the world communist movement had to learn from the Bolshevik revolution.
The notion that Leninism stands for "socialism from below" in untenable.

Lenin, of course, did not bother to view "proletarian" state power "from below," from the viewpoint of the proletariat. If he had, perhaps he would have recounted the numerous
strikes and protests broken by the Cheka under martial law, the gerrymandering and disbanding of soviets, the imposition of "one-man management" onto the workers in production, the
turning of the unions into agents of the state/party and the elimination of working class freedom by party power (see section 8). All of which suggests that there are fundamental
differences, at least for the masses, between "from above" and "from below."

Anarchists, in contrast, recognise that parties and classes are different and only self-management in popular organisations from below upwards can ensure that a social revolution
remains in the hands of all and not a source of power for the few. Thus "All Power to the Soviets," for anarchists, means exactly that -- not a euphemism for "All Power to the
Party." As Russian anarchist Voline argued, "for, the anarchists [in 1917] declared, if 'power' really should belong to the soviets, it could not belong to the Bolshevik Party,
and if it should belong to that Party, as the Bolsheviks envisaged, it could not belong to the soviets." Marxist confusion of the difference between working class power and party
power, combined with the nature of centralised power and an ideology which privileges the party over the working class (see section 11) cannot help but lead to the rise of a ruling
bureaucracy, pursuing "from above" their own power and privileges. "All political power inevitably creates a privileged situation for the men who exercise it," argued Voline.
"Thus is violates, from the beginning, the equalitarian principle and strikes at the heart of the Social Revolution" and "becomes the source of other privileges . . . power is
compelled to create a bureaucratic and coercive apparatus indispensable to all authority . . . Thus it forms a new privileged caste, at first politically and later economically."
[The Unknown Revolution, p. 213 and p. 249]

The concept of revolution "from above" is one that inevitably leads to a new form of class rule -- rule by bureaucracy. This is not because the Bolsheviks were "bad people" --
rather it is to do with the nature of centralised power (which by its very nature can only be exercised by the few) combined with bad politics (the confusion of party power with
people power, unthinking prejudices in favour of centralism, ignoring the need for only "from below", etc.). As the Russian anarchist Sergven argued in 1918 while the Bolshevik
regime was building state capitalism:

    "The proletariat is being gradually enserfed by the state. The people are being transformed into servants over whom there has arisen a new class of administrators -- a new
    class born mainly form the womb of the so-called intelligentsia . . . We do not mean to say . . . that the Bolshevik party set out to create a new class system. But we do
    say that even the best intentions and aspirations must inevitably be smashed against the evils inherent in any system of centralised power. The separation of management from
    labour, the division between administrators and workers flows logically from centralisation. It cannot be otherwise." [The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, pp. 123-4]

Thus McNally's use of the term "from below" is dishonest on two levels. Firstly, it is of anarchist origin and, secondly, it was repudiated by Lenin himself (who urged revolution
"from below" and "from above", thus laying the groundwork for a new class system based around the Party). It goes without saying that either McNally is ignorant of his subject
(and if so, why write a pamphlet on it?) or he knew these facts and decided to suppress them. Either way it shows the bankruptcy of Marxism -- it uses libertarian rhetoric for
non-libertarian ends while distorting the real source of those ideas. That Lenin dismissed this rhetoric and the ideas behind them as "anarchist" says it all. McNally's (and the
SWP/ISO's) use of this rhetoric and imagery is therefore deeply dishonest.

15. Did Trotsky keep alive Leninism's "democratic essence"?

McNally argues that "[d]uring the terrible decades of the 1920s and 1940s . . . the lone voice of Leon Trotsky kept alive some of the basic elements of socialism from below"
and suggests it "was Trotsky's great virtue to insist against all odds that socialism was rooted in the struggle for human freedom." By the mid-1920s "the programme of the Left
Opposition" which Trotsky lead had as one of its "two central planks" that "democracy had to be re-established in the Bolshevik party and in the mass organisations such as the
trade unions and the soviets." In short:

    ""Throughout the 1920s and until his death at the hands of Stalinist agent in 1940, Trotsky fought desperately to build a revolutionary socialist movement based on the
    principles of Marx and Lenin.""

There is one slight flaw with this argument, namely that it is not actually true. All through the 1920s and 1930s Trotsky, rather than argue for "socialism's democratic essence",
continually argued for party dictatorship. That McNally asserts the exact opposite suggests that the ideas of anarchism are not the only ones he is ignorant of. To prove our case,
we simply need to provide a chronological account of Trotsky's actual ideas.

We shall begin in early 1920 when he argued that the "working class cannot be left wandering round all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just
like soldiers" and that "[d]eserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps". [quoted by Maurice Brinton, "The Bolsheviks and
Workers' Control", For Workers' Power, p. 61] Is "human freedom" (to use McNally's words) compatible with Trotsky's suggestions? This was no isolated comment and in July of that
year we discover him arguing that:

    "In the hands of the party is concentrated the general control . . . it has the final word in all fundamental questions . . . the last word belongs to the Central Committee of
    the party . . . Such a regime is possible only in the presence of the unquestioned authority of the party, and the faultlessness of its discipline . . .

    "The exclusive role of the Communist Party under the conditions of a victorious proletarian revolution is quite comprehensible. The question is of the dictatorship of a class.
    In the composition of that class there enter various elements, heterogeneous moods, different levels of development. Yet the dictatorship pre-supposes unity of will, unity of
    direction, unity of action. By what other path then can it be attained? The revolutionary supremacy of the proletariat pre-supposes within the proletariat itself the political
    supremacy of a party, with a clear programme of action and a faultless internal discipline.

    "The policy of coalitions contradicts internally the regime of the revolutionary dictatorship. We have in view . . . a coalition of Communists with other 'Socialist'
    organisations, representing different stages of backwardness and prejudice-of the labouring masses.

    "[ . . .]

    "We 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, pp. 107-9]

He argued against those who suggested that the dictatorship should be carried out by the whole class: "It is not easy to understand what actually they imagine when they say this.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, in its very essence, signifies the immediate supremacy of the revolutionary vanguard, which relies upon the heavy masses, and, where necessary,
obliges the backward tail to dress by the head." [Op. Cit., p. 110] This rejection of democracy also applied to workplace democracy:

    "our Party Congress . . . expressed itself in favour of the principle of one-man management in the administration of industry . . . It would be the greatest possible mistake .
    . . to consider this decision as a blow to the independence of the working class . . . It would consequently be a most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy
    of the proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the abolition of private property in the
    means of production, in the supremacy over the whole Soviet mechanism of the collective will of the workers, and not at all in the form in which individual economic enterprises
    are administered . . . we took our stand, and continue to do so on purely Marxist views of the revolutionary problems and creative duties of the proletariat when it has taken
    power into its own hands . . . I consider if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we
    should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully." [Op. Cit., pp. 161-3]

In this, as with party dictatorship, he was simply repeating Bolshevik orthodoxy -- Lenin had been arguing for state-appointed one-man management (armed with "dictatorial"
authority) since the spring of 1918. Ignoring all the euphemisms for party dictatorship ("the collective will of the workers") and obvious questions (like, if this were the case,
how Trotsky could argue that it was the proletariat which had "taken power into its own hands"?), the fact is that he was simply wrong. It does matter if workplaces are run by
their workers or not for if they do not then someone else does. Replacing capitalists with state bureaucrats just changes the face of the boss -- as anarchists have been arguing
since Proudhon. Trotsky did not deny how authoritarian this regime was:

    "Both economic and political compulsion are only forms of the expression of the dictatorship of the working class in two closely connected regions . . . the road to Socialism
    lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the State . . . Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so
    the State, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of State, which embraces the life of the citizens
    authoritatively in every direction . . . No organisation except the army has ever controlled man with such severe compulsion as does the State organisation of the working class
    in the most difficult period of transition. It is just for this reason that we speak of the militarisation of labour." [Op. Cit., pp. 169-170]

Against those who argued that by "[d]estroying or driving underground the other parties, you have thereby prevented their political competition with you, and consequently you
have deprived yourselves of the possibility of testing your line of action" Trotsky replied by pointing to the efficiency of Bolshevik repression: "In a period in which . . . the
political struggle swiftly passes into a civil war, the ruling party has sufficient material standard by which to test its line of action, without the possible circulation of
Menshevik papers. Noske crushes the Communists, but they grow. We have suppressed the Mensheviks and the SRs -- and they have disappeared. This criterion is sufficient for us."
From this he concluded that Bolshevism "expresses the interests of historical development." [Op. Cit., pp. 109-110] Needless to say, he did not repeat this "might-makes-right"
criteria when the Stalinists made the Trotskyists disappear in the late 1920s and 1930s.

Of course, this was written during the Civil War and may be excused in terms of the circumstances in which it was written. However, this ignores the awkward fact that Trotsky's
arguments reflected the theoretical conclusions required to produce what he considered as a successful revolution and, as noted in section 8, other leading Bolsheviks had
proclaimed to the world this necessity of party dictatorship. Trotsky did not object and universalised the argument when he pondered the important decisions of the revolution and
who would make them in his reply to the delegate from the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CNT:

    "Who decides this question [and others like it]? We have the Council of People's Commissars but it has to be subject to some supervision. Whose supervision? That of the working
    class as an amorphous, chaotic mass? No. The Central Committee of the party is convened to discuss . . . and to decide . . . Who will solve these questions in Spain? The
    Communist Party of Spain." [Proceedings and Documents of the Second Congress 1920, vol. 1, p. 174]



This dismissal of working-class democracy was party orthodoxy, as can be seen from the awkward fact that Trotsky continued to argue for party dictatorship after the end of the
civil war in November 1920. Thus we discover him in early in 1921 arguing again for Party dictatorship at the Communist Party's Tenth Party Congress. His comments made there
against the Workers' Opposition within the Communist Party make his position clear:

    "The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party,
    as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the 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]

It should be noted that Trotsky was being too generous to the Workers' Opposition, for "while demanding more freedom of initiative for the workers" in economic matters, "it was
quite content to leave untouched the state of affairs in which a few hundred thousand imposed their will on many millions" and it "had no wish to disturb the communist party's
monopoly of political power." [Leonard Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy, p. 294] So even limited industrial democracy was considered too much by Trotsky in 1921.
In late March 1921, he re-iterated this position in relation to the crushing of the Kronstadt revolt for soviet democracy by asserting that the "economic, political, and national
independence of Russia is possible only under the dictatorship of the soviets. The backbone of this dictatorship is the Communist Party. There is no other party that can play this
part, nor can there be." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 73]

Trotsky repeated this call again in 1922 when he stated plainly that "we maintain the dictatorship of our party!" [The First Five Years of the Communist International, vol. 2, p.
255] Writing in the following year, he argued that " [i]f there is one question which basically not only does not require revision but does not so much as admit the thought of
revision, it is the question of the dictatorship of the Party, and its leadership in all spheres of our work." He stressed that "[o]ur party is the ruling party . . . To allow any
changes whatever in this field, to allow the idea of a partial . . . curtailment of the leading role of our party would mean to bring into question all the achievements of the
revolution and its future." He indicated the fate of those who did question this: "Whoever makes an attempt on the party's leading role will, I hope, be unanimously dumped by all
of us on the other side of the barricade." [Leon Trotsky Speaks, p. 158 and p. 160] Which, of course, was exactly what the Bolsheviks had done to other socialists (anarchists and
others) and working class militants and strikers after they had taken power (see section H.6 for details).

At this point, it will be argued that this was before the rise of Stalinism and his activities in the Left Opposition. As McNally suggests, many argue that these developments saw
Trotsky finally rejecting the idea of party dictatorship and re-embracing what McNally terms the "democratic essence" of Leninism. Unfortunately, yet again, this argument suffers
from the flaw that it is false.

Let us start with the so-called "New Course" of December 1923, in which Trotsky stated that "[w]e are the only party in the country and, in the period of the dictatorship, it could
not be otherwise", the Party was "obliged to monopolise the direction of political life" and it was "incontestable that fractions [within the Party] are a scourge in the present
situation". Of course, there was talk of "workers' democracy" but the "New Course Resolution" was clear that that term in fact meant only internal party democracy: "Workers'
democracy means the liberty of frank discussion of the most important questions of party life by all members, and the election of all leading party functionaries and commissions".
[The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25), p. 87, p. 89 and p. 460]

This applied to the banning of factions within the Communist party, with Trotsky keen to stress at the 13th Party Congress in 1924 that "party democracy in no way implies freedom
for factional groupings which are extremely dangerous for the ruling party, since they threaten to split or divide the government and the state apparatus as a whole. I believe this
is undisputed and indisputable". He linked his position to the 10th Party Congress "where Valdimir Ilyich [Lenin] personally" made the same points and re-iterated his position: "I
have never recognised freedom for groupings inside the party, nor do I now recognise it". [Op. Cit., p. 170 and p. 171] He declared his faith in the Party:

    "Comrades, none of us wants to be or can be right against the party. In the last analysis the party is always right, because the party is the only historical instrument that
    the working class possesses for the solution of its fundamental tasks . . . I know that no one can be right against the party. It is only possible to be right only with the
    party and through it because history has not created any other way to determine the correct position . . . the party, in the last analysis, is always right". [Op. Cit. , p.
    179]

He did acknowledge that "even the party itself can make occasional mistakes" but argued that the duty of a party member was to follow its decisions if they could not convince the
party that it had made one of these. The links to his arguments from 1920 and 1921 are clear enough, alongside the privileged position this places the party in terms of its right
to ignore any democratic decisions of the masses it claimed to be ruling on behalf of. Needless to say, the "New Course Resolution" likewise stated party democracy "does not . . .
imply the freedom to form factional groupings". [Op. Cit., p. 180 and p. 460]

Moving on to Left Opposition proper, we see Trotsky opining in 1926 that the "dictatorship of the party does not contradict the dictatorship of the class either theoretically or
practically; but is the expression of it, if the regime of workers' democracy is constantly developed more and more." [The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-27), p. 76] The
obvious contradictions and absurdities of this assertion are all too plain. Needless to say, when defending the concept of "the dictatorship of the party" he linked it to Lenin
(and so to Leninist orthodoxy):

    "Of course, the foundation of our regime is the dictatorship of a class. But this in turn assumes . . . it is class that has come to self-consciousness through its vanguard,
    which is to say, through the party. Without this, the dictatorship could not exist . . . Dictatorship is the most highly concentrated function of function of a class, and
    therefore the basic instrument of a dictatorship is a party. In the most fundamental aspects a class realises its dictatorship through a party. That is why Lenin spoke not only
    of the dictatorship of the class but also the dictatorship of the party and, in a certain sense, made them identical." [ Op. Cit., pp. 75-6]

The following year saw Trotsky state that "[w]ith us the dictatorship of the party (quite falsely disputed theoretically by Stalin) is the expression of the socialist dictatorship
of the proletariat . . . The dictatorship of a party is a part of the socialist revolution". [Leon Trotsky on China, p. 251] 1927 also saw the publication of the Platform of
the Opposition, in which Trotsky still did not question the issue of Party dictatorship. Indeed, it was actually stressed in that document and so while it urged a "consistent
development of a workers' democracy in the party, the trade unions, and the soviets" and to "convert the urban soviets into real institutions of proletarian power" it contradicted
itself by, ironically, attacking Stalin for weakening the party's dictatorship. In its words, the "growing replacement of the party by its own apparatus is promoted by a 'theory'
of Stalin's which denies the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realised only through the dictatorship
of the party." It stressed that "the dictatorship of the proletariat demands a single and united proletarian party as the leader of the working masses and the poor peasantry"
and "[n]obody who sincerely defends the line of Lenin can entertain the idea of 'two parties' or play with the suggestion of a split. Only those who desire to replace Lenin's
course with some other can advocate a split or a movement along the two-party road". Given this: "We will fight with all our power against the idea of two parties, because the
dictatorship of the proletariat demands as its very core a single proletarian party. It demands a single party." [The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-7), p. 384, p. 395, p.
439 and p. 441]

The Platform was as anti-democratic economically as it was politically, asserting that "nationalisation of the means of production was a decisive step toward the socialist
reconstruction of that whole social system which is founded upon the exploitation of man by man" and that the "appropriation of surplus value by a workers' state is not, of
course, exploitation" yet makes no call for workers' management of production (unsurprisingly as one-man management had been raised by Lenin in early 1918 and became Bolshevik
orthodoxy as Trotsky had explained in 1920). The Platform does acknowledge that "we have a workers' state with bureaucratic distortions" and so its "swollen and privileged
administrative apparatus devours a very considerable part of our surplus value" and "the growing bourgeoisie, by means of trade and gambling on the abnormal disparity of prices,
[also] appropriates a part of the surplus value created by our state industry". Thus "all the data testify that the growth of wages is lagging behind the growth of the productivity
of labour." [ Op. Cit., p. 347, p. 348 and p. 350] Trotsky appeared to believe that an economic regime marked by one-man management by state-appointed bosses under a party
dictatorship would somehow be without exploitation even though someone other than the workers controlled both their labour and how its product (and any surplus) was used -- just as
in a capitalist workplace. He failed to understand that this exploitation was the inevitable result of the economic regime he considered as "socialist" -- namely "nationalisation
of the means of production" which simply handed the economy to the bureaucracy and created state capitalism (see section H.3.13). This did not abolish "the exploitation of man by
man" but rather changed the social class which exploited the working class from private capitalists to state bureaucrats -- as anarchists had predicted from Proudhon onwards.



Of course The Platform did not bother to explain how workers' democracy could develop within a party dictatorship nor how soviets could become institutions of power when real power
would, obviously, lie with the party. But, then, it did not have to as by "workers' democracy" the Platform meant inter-party democracy, as can be seen when it "affirm[s]" the "New
Course Resolution" definition quoted above. [Op. Cit., p. 402]



As is well know, the Opposition was crushed and Trotsky forced into exile. This did not lead to a fundamental re-evaluation of the degeneration of the revolution and the need for
genuine soviet democracy. A key task was "[t]o stop the dissolution of the party into the class in the USSR" and so, perhaps unsurprisingly, Soviet democracy went unmentioned.
[Writings 1930, p. 148] Repeating previous arguments, Trotsky was fundamentally concerned about the dangers "if the vanguard is dissolved into the amorphous mass" for "the party
is not the class, but its vanguard; it cannot pay for its numerical growth by the lowering of its political level". There was "the demand of party democracy" for the dictatorship
of the proletariat "is inconceivable without a ruling proletarian party" but nothing on working class freedom or democracy. Perhaps this is unsurprising: "What we mean by the
restoration of party democracy is that the real revolutionary, proletarian core of the party win the right to curb the bureaucracy and to really purge the party". In other words,
the first act of the successful Opposition would have been the reduction in numbers of those who had some kind of meaningful vote. Rest assured, though, because the new party
regime "means that the party directs the proletarian dictatorship but does not strangle the mass organisations of the toilers" and the secret ballot is "one of the most important
means to discipline the entire apparatus and subordinate it to the party". [Writings 1930-31, p. 241, p. 244, p. 247, pp. 255-6, p. 70 and p. 130] Clearly "socialism's democratic
essence" was, at best, applicable to within the ruling party -- or at least what remained of it after the purges.

In 1932, he was arguing that the "same class can rule with the help of different political systems and methods according to circumstances. So the bourgeoisie on its historical
road carried through its rule under absolute monarchy, bonapartism, parliamentary republic and fascist dictatorship . . . the Soviet regime means the rule of the proletariat,
irrespective of how broad the stratum on whose hands the power is immediately concentrated." This was justification for his denial that there was "a small group in the Kremlin
who exercise oligarchical powers" ("No, that is not so"). [Writings 1932, p. 217] Trotsky seemed to have forgotten that the bourgeoisie was a minority class which controlled the
economic life of a country. Given this, it is not surprising that it could still rule under dictatorships. The same cannot be said of the working class -- particularly if, as under
Lenin and Trotsky, its democratic control of work and so the economy was replaced by one-man management. Yet Trotsky had no alternative to make such an obviously wrong assertion --
to acknowledge the truth, that socialism needs meaningful workers' social and economic democracy to qualify as genuinely socialist -- would have meant raising questions over the
nature of the Bolshevik regime between 1918 and 1923 when he was at its commanding heights. Hence clearly incorrect assertions like: "The dictatorship of a class does not mean by a
long shot that its entire mass always participates in the management of the state" [Writings 1933-34, p. 124]

In 1936 Trotsky finally appeared to revise his ideas in The Revolution Betrayed , although his revisionism in terms of democracy was combined with revisionism in the events of
the Russian Revolution. It would be fair to suggest that McNally's account of Trotsky's ideas may be based on this work for in stark contrast to his early arguments he now stated
that "[b]ureaucratic autocracy must give place to Soviet democracy. A restoration of the right of criticism, and a genuine freedom of elections, are necessary conditions for
the further development of the country. This assumes a revival of freedom of Soviet parties, beginning with the party of Bolsheviks". [The Revolution Betrayed, p. 273] Given
his previous comments on the matter, the reader would be justified in wondering whether, rather than a sincere change of heart, Trotsky's position was a limited and temporary
aberration (Anarchist-turned-Bolshevik Victor Serge, who later broke with Trotsky over this issue, stated that he "had prevailed on him to include in" this book "a declaration of
freedom for all parties accepting the Soviet system." [Memoirs of a Revolutionary, p. 348]).

The evidence suggests the latter, that it was a temporary aberration -- particularly given the misleading account of the rise of the Bolshevik dictatorship. Thus we find Trotsky
suggesting that it was 1924-26 that saw "the complete suppression of party and Soviet democracy" when, as noted above, he was publicly acknowledging the reality of party
dictatorship in 1920. He also forgot the ideas of his own Opposition from 1927 and in 1936 it was no longer was it a case of the necessity of a single party as "a class has many
'parts' -– some look forward and some back -– [and so] one and the same class may create several parties . . . An example of only one party corresponding to one class is not to be
found in the whole course of political history -– provided, of course, you do not take the police appearance for the reality." That the need for the dictatorship of the vanguard
was justified precisely in terms of the backwardness of the class and other parties was forgotten. Likewise, the acknowledgement of party dictatorship as a principle of Leninism
was overlooked in favour of the suggestion that the civil war resulted in the opposition parties being "forbidden one after the other" and while this was "obviously in conflict
with the spirit of Soviet democracy, the leaders of Bolshevism regarded [it] not as a principle, but as an episodic act of self-defence." [Op. Cit., p. 34, p. 252 and p. 96] It
would be churlish to note that the final abolition of opposition parties -- like factions within the ruling party -- occurred after the end of the civil war.

These awkward facts did not stop Trotsky from suggesting a fundamental difference between the Leninist and Stalinist dictatorships:

    "To be sure, during the first period of the Soviet era the Bolshevik party also exercised a monopoly. But to identify these two phenomena would be to take appearance for
    reality. The prohibition of opposition parties was a temporary measure dictated by conditions of civil war, blockade, intervention and famine. The ruling party, representing
    in that period a genuine organisation of the proletarian vanguard, was living a full-blooded inner life. A struggle of groups and factions to a certain degree replaced the
    struggle of parties. At present, when socialism has conquered 'finally and irrevocably,' the formation of factions is punished with concentration camp or firing squad. The
    prohibition of other parties, from being a temporary evil, has been erected into a principle." [Op. Cit., p. 251]

In reality, the necessity of a party dictatorship was embraced by leading Bolsheviks like Trotsky and proclaimed to the world Socialist movement. The prohibition of opposition
parties was not lamented at the time but rather raised to a principle (a Leninist principle, no less!) and implemented after victory in the civil war was secure. Factions were
banned -- with Trotsky's wholehearted support -- precisely because, as he later noted, they had replaced the struggle of parties. Nor was Trotsky bothered by state repression of
opposition when he was in charge. For example a series of (unofficial) strikes broke out in July and August 1923 in Moscow and Petrograd and this "gave a new lease of life to
the Mensheviks" and so "the GPU carried out a massive round up of Mensheviks, and as many as one thousand were arrested in Moscow alone." [Tony Cliff, Trotsky, vol. 3, p. 25]
When it was the turn of the ex-Bolsheviks in the Workers' Group, Trotsky "was not at all eager to defend" them and "did not protest when their adherents were thrown into prison.
Nor was he at all eager to support their demand for soviet democracy in that extreme form". [Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed, pp. 108-9] It should be noted that rather than
"extreme" a better word would have been "genuine" as the Workers' Group, unlike Trotsky, did call for a multi-party workers' democracy -- and paid the price. Indeed, the "New
Course Resolution" even went so far as to say that "it is obvious that there can be no toleration of the formation of groupings whose ideological content is directed against the
party as a whole and against the dictatorship of the proletariat, as for instance the Workers' Truth and Workers' Group." [The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1923-25), p. 408]

It would be remiss to not note how limited Trotsky's position was: being limited to the Soviet Union it does not automatically negate his arguments previously made to the
international socialist movement. Moreover, given the revisionism of the origins of the Bolshevik dictatorship it is legitimate to ponder how honest Trotsky's statement is. He
stated that if ""the Soviet bureaucracy is overthrown by a revolutionary party having all the attributes of the old Bolshevism" then it "would begin with the restoration of
democracy in the trade unions and the Soviets" and it "would be able to, and would have to, restore freedom of Soviet parties." Yet it was precisely the Bolsheviks who decreed that
other parties within the Soviets were not genuine Soviet parties after all and repressed them. What guarantee exists that once the Bolsheviks had been revived (i.e., his faction
took over) they did not conclude, as before, the necessity of party dictatorship? None. After all, did he not suggest that the "dictatorship of the Bolshevik party proved one of
the most powerful instruments of progress in history"? [Op. Cit., pp. 238-9 and p. 104]

This limited support for Soviet Democracy was short-lived. Writing in 1937, ten years after the Platform was published and a year after The Revolution Betrayed , Trotsky was
reiterating the privileged position of the party. In his essay "Bolshevism and Stalinism" he argued quite explicitly that "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard"
and that "the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the masses and their heterogeneity." Only with "support of the vanguard by the class" can
there be the "conquest of power" and it was in "this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the
vanguard." Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still
by no means the sovereign ruler of society." Note, the party is "the sovereign ruler of society," not the working class. Nor can it be said that he was not clear who held power
in his system: state power is required to govern the masses, who cannot exercise power themselves as "[t]hose who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship
should understand that only thanks to the Bolshevik leadership were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."
[Writings 1936-37, p. 490, p. 488 and p. 495] Later that same year he repeated this position clearly and unambiguously:

    "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an objective necessity imposed upon us by the social
    realities -- the class struggle, the 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." [Op. Cit., pp. 513-4]

Which was, let us not forget, his argument in 1920. Such remarkable consistency on this point over a 17 year period and one which cannot be overlooked if you seek to present
an accurate account of Trotsky's ideas during this period. Significantly, this was the year after his apparent (and much belated) embrace of soviet democracy for the USSR in
The Revolution Betrayed and so that work must be considered as a temporary aberration, quickly rejected. His advice on what to do during the Spanish Revolution followed this
pattern: "Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." [our emphasis, Op. Cit., p. 514] So much
for workers' power!

The following year saw Trotsky produce an article defending the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt which proclaimed that a "revolution is 'made' directly by a minority. The
success of a revolution is possible, however, only where this minority finds more or less support, or at least friendly neutrality, on the part of the majority. The shift in
different stages of the revolution, like the transition from revolution to counterrevolution, is directly determined by changing political relations between the minority and
the majority, between the vanguard and the class." ["Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt", Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 85] Given that Kronstadt had rebelled against the Bolshevik
dictatorship for soviet democracy, Trotsky's argument suggests that for him the rule of the party (the "minority . . . the vanguard") is more important than soviet democracy (see
the appendix on "What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?" for more details of this key event in the history of the Russian Revolution). In other words, if the majority come to reject the
minority then the former shows lack of sufficient class awareness and so the latter needs, as in Kronstadt, to use state power to secure its ruling position. This is implicit in
the following strange comment:

    "It is true that some of them [the critics of Bolshevism] recognise the revolution and the dictatorship –- in words. But this does not help matters. They wish for a revolution
    which will not lead to dictatorship or for a dictatorship which will get along without the use of force. Of course, this would be a very 'pleasant' dictatorship. It requires,
    however, a few trifles: an equal and, moreover, an extremely high, development of the toiling masses. But in such conditions the dictatorship would in general be unnecessary.
    Some Anarchists, who are really liberal pedagogues, hope that in a hundred or a thousand years the toilers will have attained so high a level of development that coercion will
    prove unnecessary. Naturally, if capitalism could lead to such a development, there would be no reason for overthrowing capitalism. There would be no need either for violent
    revolution or for the dictatorship which is an inevitable consequence of revolutionary victory" [Op. Cit., pp. 92-3]

Given that the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is meant to be the means by which the proletariat coerce the former ruling elite, it is strange to read Trotsky argue
that coercion becomes unnecessary if the toiling masses have a high level of political development. Why would the ruling elite stop their attempts at counter-revolution in those
circumstances? That seems unlikely so we can only conclude that the coercion (like the dictatorship) is directed against the "toiling masses" by the ruling party. This is confirmed
the following year (1939) when Trotsky repeats the same dictatorial ideas of 1921 by indicating -- yet again -- that he viewed democracy as a threat to the revolution and saw the
need for party power over workers' freedom:

    "The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is
    indispensable. Only a party, wielding the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves . . . 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 against Marxism", pp. 53-66, Their Morals and Ours, 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 freedom. This is because such a position
means denying exactly what workers' democracy is meant to be all about -- namely that working people can recall and replace their delegates when those delegates do not follow the
wishes and mandates of the electors. If the governors determine what is and what is not in the "real" interests of the masses and "overcome" (i.e. repress) the governed, then we
have dictatorship, not democracy.

Trotsky was hardly alone in his views given that they were Bolshevik orthodoxy. Amazingly enough, even in the Russian prison camps in the late 1920s and early 1930s, "almost all
the Trotskyists continued to consider that 'freedom of party' would be 'the end of the revolution.' 'Freedom to choose one's party -- that is Menshevism,' was the Trotskyists'
final verdict." This was because it had been "condemned formerly by Lenin, by Trotsky" as well as by other Opposition Groups. [Ante Ciliga, The Russian Enigma, p. 280] As Left
Oppositionist Victor Serge pointed out "the greatest reach of boldness of the Left Opposition in the Bolshevik Party was to demand the restoration of inner-Party democracy, and
it never dared dispute the theory of single-party government -- by this time, it was too late." [The Serge-Trotsky Papers, p. 181] Sadly, like Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed,
Serge's later Memoirs paint a different picture by asserting one of its "great fundamental ideas" was "working-class democracy"! [Memoirs of a Revolutionary, p. 252]

As can be seen, McNally does not present a remotely accurate account of Trotsky's ideas during the 1920s and 1930s. All of which makes McNally's comments deeply ironic. He argues
that "Stalin had returned to an ideology resembling authoritarian pre-Marxian socialism. Gone was socialism's democratic essence. Stalin's 'Marxism' was a variant of socialism from
above" Clearly, Trotsky's Marxism was also a variant of "socialism from above" and without "socialism's democratic essence" (unless you think that party dictatorship can somehow be
reconciled with democracy or expresses one of the "basic elements of socialism from below"). For Trotsky, as for Stalin, the dictatorship of the party was a fundamental principle
of Bolshevism and one which was above democracy (which, by its very nature, expresses the "vacillation of the masses" ). Compare McNally's words on Stalinism to Trotsky's position:

    ""For [Stalin's] group, 'socialism' lost all foundation in organs of workers' democracy, soviets . . . They came increasingly to identify socialism with a bureaucratic monopoly
    of power which allowed no place for organs of mass democracy . . . Gone was the commitment to workers' democracy and international socialism . . . Stalin undertook to reshape
    the entire nature and direction of Russian society . . . the elimination of all dissent; the liquidation of all forms of democracy and of genuine working class organisation . .
    . "

Given that the identification of socialism with the party's "monopoly of power" as well as removal of "the commitment to workers' democracy" occurred under Lenin and that Trotsky's
defended this, the question arises was there any fundamental difference between Leninism and Stalinism? As Victor Serge admitted, "a good many Oppositionists rallied to the
[Stalinist] 'general line' and renounced their errors since, as they put it, 'After all, it is our programme that is being applied'" [Op. Cit., p. 252] Hence Emma Goldman:

    "In point of truth I see no marked difference between the two protagonists of the benevolent system of the dictatorship except that Leon Trotsky is no longer in power to
    enforce its blessings, and Josef Stalin is . . . Stalin did not come down as a gift from heaven to the hapless Russian people. He is merely continuing the Bolshevik traditions,
    even if in a more relentless manner . . . I admit, the dictatorship under Stalin's rule has become monstrous. That does not, however, lessen the guilt of Leon Trotsky as one of
    the actors in the revolutionary drama" ["Trotsky Protests Too Much", Writings of Emma Goldman, pp. 251-2]

Ante Ciliga saw the similarities first-hand while in prison in the Soviet Union, noting that the Trotskyists "who were in prison for anti-Stalinism could find nothing better to
do than to indulge in Stalinism themselves [in their political groups] while in prison. This absurdity was only apparent; it merely served to prove that between Trotskyism and
Stalinism there were many points in common". The outlook of the Trotskyist majority "was not very different from that of the Stalinist bureaucracy; they were slightly more polite
and human, that was all." [Op. Cit., p. 218 and p. 263] This is unsurprising given, as indicated, the same Bolshevik political legacy and same class position (Trotskyists were
labelled "the bureaucracy in exile"). It may have been that if the Trotskyists had won the inter-bureaucracy struggle in the mid-1920s then the Soviet Union would have avoided the
horrors of Stalinism but it would have remained a state capitalist party dictatorship and, as such, a class system in which the few exploit, oppress and repress the many. That this
few would have exploited the many less ruthlessly and aimed to impose similar regimes internationally rather than concentrating on building "socialism in one country" does not mean
much.

Needless to say, Goldman had no difficulty in recognising that Bolshevik Russia was "State Capitalism" in the early 1920s (i.e., when Trotsky was still part of the ruling class).
[My Disillusionment in Russia, p. 247] McNally argues that " [b]y making the nature of property ownership the criterion of workers' state" rather than "workers' power and workers'
democracy" Trotsky had "committed an error that was seriously to disorient the Trotskyist movement in later years. For, unwittingly, Trotsky had broken from the most basic precepts
of socialism from below." Yet what alternative did he have? After all, both workers' democracy and power had been eliminated when he held power alongside Lenin and he did not
consider the first -- bar for a short period in 1936 -- as important enough to advocate and equated the second with party rule. So if McNally's criteria is taken seriously then we
must conclude that the Bolshevik regime had not been a "workers' state" since mid-1918 nor did Trotsky aim for one during the 1920s and 1930s. Which raises the awkward question
of why McNally thinks he had not broken "from the most basic precepts of socialism from below" by defending Lenin's party dictatorship and Trotsky's attempts to recreate it? Does
having the right people in power make "workers' control of society" an optional extra for "socialism from below"?

McNally then suggests that this breaking with "the most basic precepts of socialism from below" by not recognising Stalinist Russia was "a system of bureaucratic state capitalism
in which capital is collectively controlled by the privileged bureaucracy that controls the state" was "not readily apparent during Trotsky's lifetime." Far from it -- anarchists
had recognised the grim reality of the new Bolshevik state from early 1918 and indicated that it had confirmed the fears raised by Bakunin in his polemics with Marx (see section
H.3.13). It is worth indicating these arguments since we did not have to wait until the 1940s before drawing what to the uninitiated was an obvious conclusion -- that the Soviet
Union was a state capitalist dictatorship run by and for a new ruling minority.

A state, Bakunin argued, "stands outside the people and above them" and so was "the government of society from above downward" which resulted in the "actual subordination of
the sovereign people to the intellectual minority that governs them." It was the "government of the masses from above downwards" by a minority "which supposedly understands
the real interests of the people better than the people themselves". However, "power corrupts those invested with it just as much as those compelled to submit to it" and the
"government of the majority by a minority in the name of the presumed stupidity of the one and the presumed intelligence of the other" would have "the direct and inevitable result
of consolidating the political and economic privileges of the governing minority and the political and economic slavery of the masses". Bakunin recognised the elitism inherent in
Trotsky's privileging of the party (the vanguard) and argued that while it was claimed "those elected will be passionately committed as well as learned socialists" the reality
would be that "the pseudo-popular state will be nothing but the highly despotic government of the masses by a new and very small aristocracy of real or pretended scholars. The
people are not learned, so they will be liberated in entirety form the cares of government and included in entirety in the governed herd. A fine liberation!" The new government
would "begin to look upon the whole workers’ world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the
people." Rather than securing the freedom of the people "no dictatorship can have any other objective than to perpetuate itself, and that it can engender only slavery in the people
who endure it". [Statism and Anarchy, p. 136, p. 198, p. 13, p. 24, p. 136, p. 137, pp. 178-9, p. 178 and p. 179]

Economically, the workers would remain oppressed and exploited as the Marxists would "concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand, because the ignorant people require
strong supervision. They will create a single state bank, concentrating in their own hands all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific, production, and will
divide the people into two armies, one industrial and one agrarian, under the direct command of state engineers, who will form a new privileged scientific and political class." The
state bureaucracy would become the new ruling class, "a new bureaucratic aristocracy" who are "corrupted by state service", and as soon as "they enter state service . . . the iron
logic of their position, the force of circumstances inherent in certain hierarchical and profitable relationships, makes itself felt and . . . [they] become bureaucrats from head
to toe . . . The demands of a certain position always prove stronger than sentiments, intentions, or good impulses . . . They have to become members of the bureaucratic class . . .
they become enemies of the people, whether they want to or not". [Op. Cit., p. 181 and p. 51]

Clearly the Bolshevik experience confirmed Bakunin's critique of Marxism while the Makhnovist insurrectionary army in the Ukraine confirmed the validity of the anarchist
alternative (see the appendix "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" for details). As such, it is ironic to read McNally state that
"[t]hroughout the 1920s and until his death . . . Trotsky fought desperately to build a revolutionary socialist movement based on the principles of Marx and Lenin." Leaving Marx to
one side for the moment, McNally's comments are correct simply because in his advocacy of party power and dictatorship (for a "socialism from above," to use McNally's term) Trotsky
was indeed following Lenin's principles and Bolshevik orthodoxy. As noted in the last section, Lenin had been arguing from a "socialism" based on "above" and "below" since at least
1905 (which, to show their Marxist orthodoxy, he linked to Engels and his arguments against Bakunin.) The reality of Bolshevik rule (as indicated in section 8) showed that pressure
"from above" by a "revolutionary" government easily crushes pressure "from below" in the name, as Trotsky constantly stressed throughout the 1920s and 1930s, of the advanced
political ideas of the Bolshevik party leaders. Yet despite Lenin and Trotsky's dismissal of democracy, McNally argues that democracy is the core need of socialism:

    "A workers' state, according to Marx and Lenin, is a state based upon workers' control of society. It depends upon the existence of democratic organisation that can control
    society from below. A workers' state presupposes that workers are running the state. To talk of a workers' state is necessarily to talk of workers' power and workers'
    democracy."

Which, as far as it goes, is correct (for anarchists, of course, the idea that a state can be run from below is utopian -- it is not designed for that and no state has ever been).
Sadly for his argument, both Lenin and Trotsky argued against the idea of workers' democracy and, in stark contrast, argued that the dictatorship of the party was essential for a
successful revolution. Indeed, they both explicitly argued against the idea that a mass, democratic organisation could run society during a revolution. The need for party power
was raised explicitly to combat the fact that the workers' could change their minds and vote against the vanguard party. As such, the founding fathers of the SWP/ISO political
tradition explicitly argued that a workers' state had to reject workers power and democracy in order to ensure the victory of the revolution. Clearly, according to McNally's own
argument, his own politics cannot be considered as "socialism from below" as it explicitly argued that a workers' state did not "necessarily" mean workers' power or democracy.

As indicated above, for the period McNally himself selects (the 1920s and 1930s), Trotsky consistently argued that the Bolshevik tradition the SWP/ISO places itself was based on
the "Leninist principle" of party dictatorship. For McNally to talk about Trotsky keeping "socialism from below" alive is, therefore, truly amazing. It either indicates a lack of
awareness of Trotsky's ideas or a desire to deceive. To be fair to McNally, the notion that Trotsky's Opposition supported genuine workers' democracy seems to be a common fallacy
in SWP circles. Thus Chris Harman asserted that the "alternative to Stalinism" in the late 1920s was "returning to genuine workers' democracy and consciously linking the fate of
Russia to the fate of the world revolution" (while allowing "a limited development of heavy industry") and it was the "historical merit of the Left Opposition" that "it framed a
policy along these lines." [Chris Harman, Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe, p. 19] Clearly McNally is not the only Leninist unable -- or unwilling -- to discover the
grim truth about the Left Opposition or, for that matter, the reality of Bolshevik rule.

For anarchists, we stress, the Bolshevik substitution of party power for workers power did not come as a surprise. The state is the delegation of power -- as such, it means that
the idea of a "workers' state" expressing "workers' power" is a logical impossibility (see section H.3.7). If workers are running society then power rests in their hands. If a
state exists then power rests in the hands of the handful of people at the top, not in the hands of all. The state was designed for minority rule. No state can be an organ of
working class (i.e. majority) self-management due to its basic nature, structure and design.

For this reason anarchists from Bakunin onwards have argued for a bottom-up federation of workers' councils as the agent of revolution and the means of managing society after
capitalism and the state have been abolished. If these organs of workers' self-management are co-opted into a state structure (as happened in Russia) then their power will be
handed over to the real power in any state -- the government (in this case, the Council of People's Commissars). They will quickly become mere rubberstamps of the organisation
which holds the reigns of power, the vanguard party and its central committee.

McNally rewrites history by arguing that it was "Stalin's counter-revolution" which saw "communist militants . . . executed, peasants slaughtered, the last vestiges of democracy
eliminated." The SWP/ISO usually date this "counter-revolution" to 1928 (the defeat of the Left Opposition and the first Five Year Plan). However, long before this date there was
no "vestiges" of meaningful democracy left -- as Trotsky himself made clear in his comments in favour of party dictatorship between 1920 and 1923. Indeed, Trotsky had supported the
repression of the Kronstadt revolt which had called for soviet democracy. McNally ignores this and instead argues that Trotsky "acknowledged that the soviets had been destroyed,
that union democracy had disappeared, that the Bolshevik party had been stripped of its revolutionary character" under Stalinism. Yet, as we discusse in section H.6, the Bolsheviks
had already destroyed soviet democracy, undermined union democracy and repressed all revolutionary elements outside of the party, argued for the introduction of state capitalism
and the appointment of "one-man management" as well as repressing peasants and striking and protesting workers long before the start of the Russian Civil War in late May 1918. In
short, the Bolsheviks had introduced much of which McNally denounces as "Stalinism" before the war he uses to excuse them for all responsibility for its rise. As Maurice Brinton
rightly states:

    "there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practices of Stalinism . . . The more one unearths about this period
    the more difficult it becomes to define -- or even to see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time from what happened later. Real knowledge of the
    facts also makes it impossible to accept . . . that the whole course of events was 'historically inevitable' and 'objectively determined'. Bolshevik ideology and practice were
    themselves important and sometimes decisive factors in the equation, at every critical stage of this critical period [between 1917 and 1921]" ["The Bolsheviks and Workers'
    Control", For Workers' Power, p. 376]

To draw a sharp distinction between Stalinism and Bolshevism is difficult, if not impossible, to make based on McNally's own criteria. That Stalinism was more brutal, more unequal,
more despotic is true but that does not change the similarities in social relationships between the two -- both were dictatorial state capitalist regimes. That the repression did
not extend to within the Bolshevik party is a weak hook to hang a theory on.

During his analysis of the failure of orthodox Trotskyism, McNally states that after the second world war "the Trotskyist movement greeted" the various new Stalinist regimes in
Eastern Europe and elsewhere "as workers' states" in spite of being "brutally undemocratic state capitalist tyrannies." Given that the SWP /ISO and a host of other Leninist groups
still argue that Lenin's brutally undemocratic state capitalist tyranny was some kind of "workers' state" McNally's comments seem deeply ironic. As such, Trotsky's defence of
Stalinism as a "degenerated workers' state" is not as surprising nor as puzzling as McNally tries to claim. If, as he argues, "[t]o talk of a workers' state is necessarily to talk
of workers' power and workers' democracy" then Lenin's regime had ceased to be a "workers' state" (if such a thing could exist) by the spring of 1918 at the latest. For anarchists
(and libertarian Marxists) the similarities are all too clear between the regime under Lenin and that under Stalin. That McNally cannot see the obvious similarities suggests a lack
of objectivity and a weak commitment to the principles of "socialism from below"

He sums up his account of the post-Second War World Trotskyists by arguing that "the movement Trotsky had created fell victim to the ideology of socialism from above."
Unfortunately for his claims, this is not the case. As proven above, Trotsky had consistently argued for the dictatorship of the party between 1920 and 1940 and so Trotskyism had
always been based on "the ideology of socialism from above." Trotsky had argued for party dictatorship simply because democratic mass organisations would allow the working class to
express their "wavering" and "vacillations." Given that, according to those who follow Bolshevik ideas, the working class is meant to run the so-called "workers' state" Trotsky's
arguments are extremely significant. He explicitly acknowledged that under Bolshevism the working class does not actually manage their own fates but rather the vanguard party does.
This is cannot be anything but "socialism from above." If, as McNally argues, Trotsky's "fatal error" in not recognising that Stalinism was state capitalism came from "violating
the principles of socialism from below," then this "fatal error" is at the heart of the Leninist tradition.

As such, the roots of Trotsky's "fatal error" can be traced further back than the rise of Stalin. Its real roots lie with the idea of a "workers' state" and so with the ideas of
Marx and Engels. As Bakunin argued against Marx (and anarchists have repeated since) the state is, by its nature, a centralised and top-down machine. By creating a "revolutionary"
government, power is automatically transferred from the working class into the hands of a few people at the top. As they have the real, de facto, power in the state, it is
inevitable that they will implement "socialism from above" as that is how the state is structured. As Bakunin argued, all states "are in essence only machines governing the masses
from above" by a "privileged minority, allegedly knowing the genuine interests of the people better than the people themselves." The idea of a state being run "from below" makes
as much sense as "dry rain." Little wonder Bakunin argued for a "federal organisation, from the bottom upward, of workers' associations, groups, city and village communes, and
finally of regions and peoples" as "the sole condition of a real and not fictitious liberty." In other words: "Where all rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State." [The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 211, p. 210 and p. 223] Only this, the destruction of every state and its replacement by a free federation of workers' councils, can ensure a
real "socialism from below".

Therefore, rather than signifying the working class running society directly, the "workers' state" actually signifies the opposite -- namely, that the working class has delegated
that power and responsibility to others, namely the government. As Leninism supports the idea of a "workers' state" then it is inevitably and logically tied to the idea of
"socialism from below." Given that Lenin himself argued that "only from below" was an anarchist principle, we can easily see what the "fatal error" of Trotsky actually was. By
rejecting anarchism he automatically rejected real "socialism from below."

Sadly for McNally, Trotsky did not, as he asserts, embrace the "democratic essence" of Leninism in the 1920s or 30s. Rather, as is clear from Trotsky's writings, he embraced party
dictatorship (i.e. "socialism from above") and considered this as quite compatible (indeed, an essential aspect) of his Leninist ideology. That McNally fails to indicate this and,
indeed, asserts the exact opposite of the facts shows that it is not only anarchism he is ignorant about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marxists and Spanish Anarchism

In this appendix of our FAQ we discuss and reply to various analyses of Spanish anarchism put forward by Marxists, particularly Marxist-Leninists of various shades. The history
and politics of Spanish Anarchism is not well known in many circles, particularly Marxist ones, and the various misrepresentations and distortions that Marxists have spread about
that history and politics are many. This appendix is an attempt to put the record straight with regards the Spanish Anarchist movement and point out the errors associated with the
standard Marxist accounts of that movement, its politics and its history.

Hopefully this appendix will go some way towards making Marxists (and others) investigate the actual facts of anarchism and Spanish anarchist history rather than depending on
inaccurate secondary material (usually written by their comrades).

Part of this essay is based on the article "Trotskyist Lies on Anarchism" which appeared in Black Flag issue no. 211 and Tom Wetzel's article Workers' Power and the Spanish
Revolution.

1. Were the Spanish Anarchists "Primitive Rebels"?

The thesis that the Spanish Anarchists were "primitive rebels," with a primitive understanding of the nature of revolution is a common one amongst Marxists. One of the main sources
for this kind of argument is Eric Hobsbawm's Primitive Rebels, who was a member of the British Communist Party at the time. While the obvious Stalinist nature of the author may be
thought enough to alert the intelligent of its political biases, its basic thesis is repeated by many Marxists.

Before discussing Hobsbawm in more detail, it would be useful to refute some of the more silly things so-called serious historians have asserted about Spanish Anarchism. Indeed,
it would be hard to find another social or political movement which has been more misrepresented or its ideas and activities so distorted by historians whose attitudes seem more
supported by ideological conviction rather than history or investigation of social life.

One of the most common descriptions of Spanish anarchism is that it was "religious" or "millenarium" in nature. Hobsbawm himself accepts this conceptualisation, along with
historians and commentators like Gerald Brenan and Franz Brokenau (who, in fact, did state "Anarchism is a religious movement" ). Such use of religion was largely due to the
influence of Juan Diaz del Moral, a lawyer and historian who was also a landowner. As Jerome R. Mintz points out, "according to Diaz del Moral, the moral and passionate obreros
conscientes [conscious workers -- i.e. workers who considered themselves to be anarchists] absorbed in their pamphlets and newspapers were akin to frenzied believers in a new
religion." [The Anarchists of Casas Viejas, p. 5f] However, such a perspective was formed by his class position and privileges which could not help but reflect them:

    "Diaz del Moral ascribed to the campesinos [of Andalusia] racial and cultural stereotypes that were common saws of his class. The sole cause for the waves of rural unrest,
    Diaz del Moral asserted, could be found in the psychology of the campesinos . . . He believed that the Andalusian field workers had inherited a Moorish tendency toward ecstasy
    and millenarianism that accounted for their attraction to anarchist teaching. Diaz del Moral was mystified by expressions of animosity directed toward him, but the workers
    considered him to be a senorito, a landowner who does not labour . . . Although he was both scholarly and sympathetic, Diaz del Moral could not comprehend the hunger and the
    desperation of the campesinos around him . . . To Diaz del Moral, campesino ignorance, passion, ecstasy, illusion, and depression, not having a legitimate basis in reality,
    could be found only in the roots of their racial heritage." [Op. Cit., pp. 5-6]

Hence the "religious" nature of anarchism -- it was one of the ways an uncomprehending member of the middle-class could explain working class discontent and rebellion.
Unfortunately, this "explanation" has become common place in history books (partly reflected academics class interest too and lack of understanding of working class interests,
needs and hopes).

As Mintz argues, "at first glance the religious model seems to make anarchism easier to understand, particularly in the absence of detailed observation and intimate contact. The
model was, however, also used to serve the political ends of anarchism's opponents. Here the use of the terms 'religious' and 'millenarium' stamp anarchist goals as unrealistic
and unattainable. Anarchism is thus dismissed as a viable solution to social ills." He continues by arguing that the "oversimplifications posited became serious distortions of
anarchist belief and practice" (as we shall see). [Op. Cit., p. 5 and p. 6]

Temma Kaplan's critique of the "religious" view is also worth mentioning. She argues that "the millenarium theory is too mechanistic to explain the complex pattern of Andalusian
anarchist activity. The millenarian argument, in portraying the Andalusian anarchists as fundamentally religious, overlooks their clear comprehension of the social sources of
their oppression." She concludes that "the degree of organisation, not the religiosity of workers and the community, accounts for mass mobilisations carried on by the Andalusian
anarchists at the end of the nineteenth century." She also notes that the "[i]n a secular age, the taint of religion is the taint of irrationality." [ Anarchists of Andalusia:
1868-1903, pp. 210-12 and p. 211] Thus, the Andalusian anarchists had a clear idea who their enemies were, namely the ruling class of the region. She also points out that, for all
their revolutionary elan, the anarchists developed a rational strategy of revolution, channelling their energies into organising a trade union movement that could be used as a
vehicle for social and economic change. Moreover, as well as a clear idea of how to change society they had a clear vision of what sort of society they desired -- one built around
collective ownership and federations of workers' associations and communes.

Therefore the idea that anarchism can be explained in "religious" terms is fundamentally flawed. It basically assumes that the Spanish workers were fundamentally irrational, unable
to comprehend the sources of their unhappiness nor able to define their own political goals and tactics and instead looked to naive theories which reinforced their irrationalities.
In actuality, like most people, they were sensible, intelligent human beings who believed in a better life and were willing to apply their ideas in their everyday life. That
historians apply patronising attitudes towards them says more about the historians than the campesinos.

This uncomprehending attitude to historians can be seen from some of the more strange assertions they make against the Spanish Anarchists. Gerald Brenan, Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond
Carr, for example, all maintained that there was a connection between anarchist strikes and sexual practices. Carr's description gives a flavour:

    "Austere puritans, they sought to impose vegetarianism, sexual abstinence, and atheism on one of the most backward peasantries of Europe . . . Thus strikes were moments of
    exaltation as well as demands for better conditions; spontaneous and often disconnected they would bring, not only the abolition of piece-work, but 'the day,' so near at hand
    that sexual intercourse and alcohol were abandoned by enthusiasts till it should dawn." [Spain: 1808-1975, p. 444]

Mintz, an American anthropologist who actually stayed with the campesino's for a number of years after 1965, actually asked them about such claims. As he put it, the "level-headed
anarchists were astonished by such descriptions of supposed Spanish puritanism by over-enthusiastic historians." [Op. Cit., p. 6] As one anarchist put it, "[o]f course, without any
work the husband couldn't provide any food at dinnertime, and so they were angry at each other, and she wouldn't have anything to do with him. In that sense, yes, there were no
sexual relations." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 7]

Mintz traces the citations which allowed the historians to arrive at such ridiculous views to a French social historian, Angel Maraud, who observed that during the general strike
of 1902 in Moron, marriages were postponed to after the promised division of the lands. As Mintz points out, "as a Frenchman, Maraud undoubtedly assumed that everyone knew a formal
wedding ceremony did not necessarily govern the sexual relations of courting couples." [Op. Cit., p. 6f]

As for abstinence and puritanism, nothing could be further from the truth. As Mintz argues, the anarchists considered alcoholism as being "responsible for much of the social
malaise among many workers . . . Excessive drinking robbed the worker of his senses and deprived his family of food. Anarchist newspapers and pamphlets hammered out the evil of
this vice." However, "[p]roscriptions were not of a puritanical order" (and so there was no desire to "impose" such things on people) and quotes an anarchist who stated that
"coffee and tobacco were not prohibited, but one was advised against using them. Men were warned against going to a brothel. It was not a matter of morality but of hygiene." As for
vegetarianism, it "attracted few adherents, even among the obreros conscientes." [Op. Cit., pp. 86-7 and p. 88]

Moreover, academic mockery of anarchist attempts to combat alcoholism (and not alcohol as such) forgets the social context. Being academics they may not have experienced wage
labour directly and so do not realise the misery it can cause. People turn to drink simply because their jobs are so bad and seek escape from the drudgery of their everyday lives.
As Bakunin argued, "confined in their life like a prisoner in his prison, without horizon, without outlet . . . the people would have the singularly narrow souls and blunted
instincts of the bourgeois if they did not feel a desire to escape; but of escape there are but three methods -- two chimerical and a third real. The first two are the dram-shop
and the church, debauchery of the body or debauchery of the mind; the third is social revolution." [God and the State, p. 16] So to combat alcoholism was particularly important as
many workers turned to alcohol as a means of escaping the misery of life under capitalism. Thus Bookchin:

    "[T]o abstain from smoking, to live by high moral standards, and to especially adjure the consumption of alcohol was very important at the time. Spain was going through her
    own belated industrial revolution during the period of anarchist ascendancy with all its demoralising features. The collapse of morale among the proletariat, with rampant
    drunkenness, venereal disease, and the collapse of sanitary facilities, was the foremost problem which Spanish revolutionaries had to deal with . . . On this score, the Spanish
    anarchists were eminently successful. Few CNT workers, much less a committed anarchist, would have dared show up drunk at meetings or misbehave overtly with their comrades. If
    one considers the terrible working and living conditions of the period, alcoholism was not as serious a problem in Spain as it was in England during the industrial revolution."
    ["Introductory Essay", The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), pp. xix-xxf]

Mintz sums up by stating "[c]ontrary to exaggerated accounts of anarchist zeal, most thoughtful obreros conscientes believed in moderation, not abstinence." [ Op. Cit., p.
88] Unfortunately Mintz's work, the product of years of living with and talking to the people actually involved in the movement, does not seem to have made much impact on the
historians. Unsurprising, really, as history is rarely about the actions, ideas and hopes of working people.

As can be seen, historians seem to delight in misrepresenting the ideas and actions of the Spanish Anarchists. Sometimes, as just seen, the distortions are quite serious, extremely
misleading and ensure that anarchism cannot be understood or viewed as a serious political theory (we can understand why Marxists historians would seek this). Sometimes they can
be subtle as when Ronald Fraser states that at the CNT's Saragossa congress in 1936 "the proposal to create a libertarian militia to crush a military uprising was rejected almost
scornfully, in the name of traditional anti-militarism." [Blood of Spain , p. 101] Hugh Thomas makes the same claim, stating at "there was no sign that anyone [at the congress]
realised that there was a danger of fascism; and no agreement, in consequence, on the arming of militias, much less the organisation of a revolutionary army as suggested by Juan
Garcia Oliver." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 181]

However, what Fraser and Thomas omit to tell the reader is that this motion "was defeated by one favouring the idea of guerrilla warfare." [Peter Marshal, Demanding the Impossible,
p. 460] The Saragossa resolution itself stated that a "permanent army constitutes the greatest danger for the revolution . . . The armed people will be the best guarantee against
all attempts to restore the destroyed regime by interior or exterior forces . . . Each Commune should have its arms and elements of defence." [quoted by Robert Alexander, The
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 64]

Fraser's and Hugh's omission is extremely serious -- it gives a radically false impression of anarchist politics. Their comments could led a reader to think that anarchists, as
Marxists claim, do not believe in defending a revolution. As can be seen from the actual resolutions of the Saragossa conference, this is not the case. Indeed, given that the
congress was explicitly discussing, along with many other issues, the question of "defence of the revolution" their omission seriously distorts the CNT's position and anarchist
theory. As seen, the congress supported the need to arm the people and to keep those arms under the control of the communes (as well as the role of "Confederal Defence Forces" and
the efficient organisation of forces on a national level). Given that Thomas quotes extensively from the Saragossa resolution on libertarian communism we can only surmise that he
forgot to read the section entitled "Defence of the Revolution."

Hugh and Thomas omissions, however, ensure that anarchism is presented as an utopian and naive theory, unaware of the problems facing society. In reality, the opposite is the case
-- the Spanish anarchists were well aware of the need to arm the people and resist counter-revolution and fascism by force. Regardless of Thomas' claims, it is clear that the CNT
and FAI realised the danger of fascism existed and passed appropriate resolutions outlining how to organise an effective means of self-defence (indeed, as early as February 14 of
that year, the CNT had issued a prophetic manifesto warning that right-wing elements were ready to provoke a military coup [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 273]). To
state otherwise, while quoting from the document that discusses the issue, must be considered a deliberate lie.

However, to return to our main point -- Eric Hobsbawm's thesis that the Spanish anarchists were an example of "pre-political" groups -- the "primitive rebels" of his title.

Essentially, Hobsbawm describes the Spanish Anarchists -- particularly the Andalusian anarchists -- as modern-day secular mystics who, like the millenarians of the Middle Ages,
were guided by the irrational belief that it was possible to will profound social change. The actions of the Spanish anarchist movement, therefore, can be explained in terms of
millenarian behaviour -- the belief that it was able to jump start to utopia via an act of will.

The Spanish farm and industrial workers, it is argued, were unable to grasp the complexities of the economic and political structures that dominated their lives and so were
attracted to anarchism. According to Hobsbawm, anarchism is marked by "theoretical primitivism" and a primitive understanding of revolution and this explained why anarchism was
popular with Spanish workers, particularly farm workers. According to Hobsbawm, anarchism told the workers that by spontaneously rising up together they could overthrow the forces
of repression and create the new millennium.

Obviously, we cannot refute Hobsbawm's claims of anarchism's "theoretical primitivism" in this appendix, the reader is invited to consult the main FAQ. Moreover, we cannot stress
more that Hobsbawm's assertion that anarchists believe in spontaneous, overnight uprisings is false. Rather, we see revolution as a process in which day-to-day struggle and
organisation play a key role -- it is not seen as occurring independently of the on-going class struggle or social evolution. While we discuss in depth the nature of an anarchist
social revolution in section J.7, we can present a few quotes by Bakunin to refute Hobsbawm's claim:

    "Revolutions are not improvised. They are not made at will by individuals. They come about through the force of circumstances and are independent of any deliberate ill or
    conspiracy." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 139]

    "It is impossible to rouse people by artificial means. Popular revolutions are born by the actual force of events . . . It is impossible to bring about such a revolution
    artificially. It is not even possible to speed it up at all significantly . . . There are some periods in history when revolutions are quite simply impossible; there are other
    periods when they are inevitable." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 183]

As Brian Morris correctly argues, "Bakunin denies that a social revolution could be made by the will of individuals, independent of social and economic circumstances. He was much
less a voluntarist than his Marxist critics make out . . . he was . . . aware that the social revolution would be a long process that may take many years for its realisation."
[Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, pp. 138-9] To aid the process of social revolution, Bakunin supported the need for "pioneering groups or associations of advanced workers
who were willing to initiate this great movement of self-emancipation." However, more is needed -- namely popular working class organisations -- "what is the organisation of the
masses? . . . It is the organisation by professions and trades . . . The organisation of the trade sections . . . bear in themselves the living seed 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. 252 and p. 255]

Therefore, Bakunin saw revolution as a process which starts with day-to-day struggle and creation of labour unions to organise that struggle. As he put it himself:

    "What policy should the International [Workers' Association] follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .
    the International will give labour unrest in all countries an essentially economic character, with the aim of reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of the
    association of the working masses . . . It will [also] propagandise its principles . . . Lastly, the International will expand and organise across frontiers of all countries,
    so that when the revolution -- brought about by the force of circumstances -- breaks out, the International will be a real force and will know what it has to do. Then it will
    be able to take the revolution into its own hands and give it a direction that will benefit the people: an earnest international organisation of workers' associations from all
    countries, capable of replacing this departing world of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 109-10]

However, while quoting Bakunin refutes part of his thesis, Hobsbawm does base his case on some actual events of Spanish Anarchist history. Therefore we need to look at these cases
and show how he gets these wrong. Without an empirical basis, his case obviously falls even without quotes by Bakunin. Luckily the important examples he uses have been analysed by
people without the ideological blinkers inherent in Leninism.

While we shall concentrate on just two cases -- Casa Viejas in 1933 and the Jerez rising of 1892 -- a few general points should be mentioned. As Jerome Mintz notes, Hobsbawms'
"account is based primarily on a preconceived evolutionary model of political development rather than on data gathered in field research. The model scales labour movements in
accord with their progress toward mass parties and central authority. In short, he explains how anarchosyndicalists were presumed to act rather than what actually took place, and
the uprising at Casa Viejas was used to prove an already established point of view. Unfortunately, his evolutionary model misled him on virtually every point." [Op. Cit., p. 271]
We should also note his "model" is essentially Marxist ideology -- namely, Marx's assertion that his aim for mass political parties expressed the interests of the working class and
all other visions were the products of sectarians. Mintz also points out that Hobsbawm does not live up to his own model:

    "While Hobsbawm's theoretical model is evolutionary, in his own treatment anarchism is often regarded as unchanging from one decade to the other. In his text, attitudes and
    beliefs of 1903-5, 1918-20, 1933, and 1936 are lumped together or considered interchangeable. Of course during these decades the anarchosyndicalists had developed their
    programs and the individuals involved had become more experienced." [Op. Cit., p. 271f]

Hobsbawm believed that Casas Viejas was the classic "anarchist" uprising -- "utopian, millenarian, apocalyptic, as all witnesses agree it to have been." [ Primitive Rebels, p.
90] As Mintz states, "the facts prove otherwise. Casas Viejas rose not in a frenzy of blind millenarianism but in response to a call for a nation-wide revolutionary strike.
The insurrection of January 1933 was hatched by faistas [members of the FAI] in Barcelona and was to be fought primarily there and in other urban centres. The uprisings in the
countryside would be diversionary and designed to keep the civil guard from shifting reinforcements. The faista plot was then fed by intensive newspaper propaganda, by travelling
orators, and by actions undertaken by the [CNT] defence committees. Representatives of the defence committees from Casas Viejas and Medina had received instructions at a regional
meeting held days before. On January 11, the anarchosyndicalists of Casas Viejas believed that they were joining their companeros who had already been at the barricades since
January 8." [Op. Cit., p. 272]

Hobsbawm argued that the uprising occurred in accordance with an established economic pattern:

    "Economic conditions naturally determined the timing and periodicity of the revolutionary outbreaks -- for instance, social movements tended to reach a peak intensity during
    the worse months of the year -- January to March, when farm labourers have least work (the march on Jerez in 1892 and the rising of Casas Viejas in 1933 both occurred early in
    January), March-July, when the proceeding harvest has been exhausted and times are lean." [Op. Cit., p. 79]

Mintz states the obvious:

    "In reality, most agricultural strikes took place in May and June, the period of the harvest and the only time of the year when the campesinos had any leverage against the
    landowners. The uprising at Casas Viejas occurred in January precisely because it was not an agricultural strike. The timing of the insurrection, hurriedly called to coincide
    with a planned railway strike that would make it difficult for the government to shift its forces, was determined by strategic rather than economic considerations." [Op. Cit. ,
    p. 273]

As for the revolt itself, Hobsbawm asserts that:

    "Secure from the outside world, [the men] put up the red and black flag of anarchy and set about dividing the land. They made no attempt to spread the movement or kill anyone."
    [Op. Cit., p. 274]

Which, as Mintz clearly shows, was nonsense:

    "As is already evident, rather than securing themselves from the rest of world, the uprising at Casas Viejas was a pathetic attempt to join in an ill-fated national
    insurrection. With regard to his second point, there was neither the time nor the opportunity to 'set about dividing the land.' The men were scattered in various locations
    guarding roads and paths leading to the town. There were no meetings or discussions during this brief period of control. Only a few hours separated the shooting at the barracks
    and the entrance of the small [government] rescue force from Alcala. Contrary to Hobsbawm's description of peaceful enterprise, at the outset the anarchists surrounding the
    barracks had fired on the civil guards, mortally wounding two men." [Op. Cit., p. 274]

As can be seen, Hobsbawm was totally wrong about the uprising itself and so it cannot be used as evidence for his thesis. On other, less key issues, he was equally wrong. Mintz
gives an excellent summary:

    "Since kinship is a key feature in 'primitive' societies, according to Hobsbawm, it was a major factor in the leadership of the sindicato [union] in Casas Viejas.

    "There is no evidence that kinship had anything to do with leadership in the anarchist movement in Casa Viejas or anywhere else. The reverse would be closer to the truth. Since
    the anarchists expressed belief in universal brotherhood, kinship ties were often undermined. In times of strike or in carrying out any decision of the collective membership,
    obreros conscientes sometimes had to act counter to their kinship demands in order to keep faith with the movement and with their companeros.

    "Hobsbawm's specific examples are unfortunately based in part on errors of fact. . .

    "Hobsbawm's model [also] requires a charismatic leader. Accordingly, the inspired leader of the uprising is said to be 'old Curro Cruz ('Six Fingers') who issued the call for
    revolution . . . '

    [. . .]

    "This celebration of Seisdedo's role ['Six Fingers'], however, ignores the unanimous view of townspeople of every class and political persuasion, who assert that the old man
    was apolitical and had nothing to do with the uprising . . . every observer and participant in the uprising agrees that Seisdedos was not the leader and was never anything
    other than a virtuous charcoal burner with but a slight interest in anarchosyndicalism.

    [. . .]

    "Should the role of charismatic leader be given to someone else in the town? This was not a case of mistaken identity. No single person in Casas Viejas could lay clam to
    dominating the hearts and minds of the men. . .The sindicato was governed by a junta. Among the cast of characters there is no sign of charismatic leadership . . ." [Op. Cit.,
    pp. 274-6

Mintz sums up by stating "Hobsbawm's adherence to a model, and the accumulation of misinformation, led him away from the essential conflicts underlying the tragedy and from the
reality of the people who participated in it." [Op. Cit., p. 276]

The Jerez uprising of 1892 also fails to provide Hobsbawm with any empirical evidence to support his claims. Indeed, as in Casas Viejas, the evidence actually works against him.
The actual events of the uprising are as follows. Just before midnight of 8th January 1892, several hundred workers entered the town of Jerez crying "Long live the revolution!
Long live Anarchy!" Armed with only rocks, sticks, scythes and other farm equipment, they marched toward the city jail with the evident intention of releasing its prisoners -- who
included many political prisoners, victims of the government's recent anti-anarchist campaign. A few people were killed and the uprising dispersed by a regiment of mounted troops.

Hobsbawm claims this revolt as evidence for his "primitive rebels" thesis. As historian George R. Esenwein argues:

    "[T]he Jerez incident cannot be explained in terms of this model. What the millenarian view fails to do in this instance is to credit the workers with the ability to define
    their own political goals. This is not to deny that there were millenarian aspects of the rising, for the mob action of the workers on the night of 8 January indicates a degree
    of irrationalism that is consistent with millenarian behaviour. But . . . the agitators seem to have had a clear motive in mind when they rose: they sought to release their
    comrades from the local jail and thereby demonstrate their defiance of the government's incessant persecution of the International [Workers' Association] movement. However
    clumsily and crudely they expressed their grievance, the workers were patently aiming to achieve this objective and not to overthrow the local government in order to inaugurate
    the birth of a libertarian society." [Anarchist Ideology and the Working Class Movement in Spain: 1868-1898, p. 184]

Similarly, many Marxists (and liberal historians) point to the "cycle of insurrections" that occurred during the 1930s. They usually portray these revolts as isolated insurrections
organised by the FAI who appeared in villages and proclaimed libertarian communism. The picture is one of disorganisation, millenarianism and a believe in spontaneous revolution
inspired by a few militants and their daring actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "cycle of insurrections" was far more complex that this, as Juan Gomez Casas
makes clear:

    "Between 1932 and 1934 . . . the Spanish anarchists tried to destroy the existing social order through a series of increasingly violent strikes and insurrections, which were at
    first spontaneous, later co-ordinated." [ Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 135]

Stuart Christie stresses this point when he wrote "[i]t has been widely assumed that the cycle of insurrections which began in . . . January 1933 were organised and instigated by
the FAI . . . In fact the rising had nothing to do with the FAI. It began as an entirely spontaneous local affair directed against a local employer, but quickly mushroomed into a
popular movement which threatened to engulf the whole of Catalonia and the rest of Spain . . . [CNT militant] Arturo Parera later confirmed that the FAI had not participated in
the aborted movement 'as an organisation.'" [We, the Anarchists, p. 66] While the initial revolts, such as those of the miners of Alto Llobregat in January 1932, were spontaneous
acts which caught the CNT and FAI by surprise, the following insurrections became increasingly organised and co-ordinated by those organisations. The January 1933 revolt, as noted
above, was based around a planned strike by the CNT railway workers union. The revolt of December 1933 was organised by a National Revolutionary Committee. Both revolts aimed at
uprisings all across Spain, based on the existing organisations of the CNT -- the unions and their "Defence committees". Such a degree of planning belies any claims that Spanish
Anarchists were "primitive rebels" or did not understand the complexities of modern society or what was required to change it.

Ultimately, Hobsbawm's thesis and its underlying model represents Marxist arrogance and sectarianism. His model assumes the validity of 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. It was for this reason that Marx, faced with the increased influence of Bakunin, overturned the First International's original basis of free discussion with his own
concept of what a real workers' movement should be.

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. The general policies of the International
would be, by necessity, based on conference decisions that reflected the free political development that flowed from local needs. 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 that of his followers -- as can be seen, Hobsbawm (mis)interpreted anarchism and its history thanks to this Marxist model and vision.

However, once we look at the anarchist movement without the blinkers created by Marxism, we see that rather than being a movement of "primitive rebels" Spanish Anarchism was a
movement of working class people using 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 anarcho-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. Moreover, as
the history of Social Democracy indicates, the predictions of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First International were proved correct. Therefore, rather than being "primitive
rebels" 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.

2. How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?

It is fair to say that most Marxists in Britain base their criticisms of the Spanish Anarchism, particularly the revolution of 1936, on the work of Trotskyist Felix Morrow.
Morrow's book Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain, first published in 1938, actually is not that bad -- for some kinds of information. However, it is basically written as
Trotskyist propaganda. All too often Morrow is inaccurate, and over-eager to bend reality to fit the party line. This is particularly the case when discussing the actions and
ideas of the CNT and FAI and when discussing the activities of his fellow Trotskyists in Spain, the Bolshevik-Leninists. We discuss the first set of inaccuracies in the following
sections, here we mention the second, Morrow's comments on the Spanish Trotskyists.

The Bolshevik-Leninists, for example, an obscure sect who perhaps numbered 20 members at most, are, according to Morrow, transformed into the only ones who could save the Spanish
Revolution -- because they alone were members of the Fourth International, Morrow's own organisation. As he put it:

    "Only the small forces of the Bolshevik-Leninists. . . clearly pointed the road for the workers." [Felix Morrow, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain, p. 191]

    "Could that party [the party needed to lead the revolution] be any but a party standing on the platform of the Fourth International?" [Op. Cit., p. 248]

And so on. As we will make clear in the following discussion, Morrow was as wrong about this as he was about anarchism.

The POUM -- a more significant Marxist party in Spain, though still tiny compared to the anarchists -- is also written up as far more important than it was, and slagged off
for failing to lead the masses to victory (or listening to the Bolshevik-Leninists). The Fourth Internationalists "offered the POUM the rarest and most precious form of aid: a
consistent Marxist analysis" [Op. Cit., p. 105] (never mind Spanish workers needing guns and solidarity!). But when such a programme -- prepared in advance -- was offered to the
POUM by the Fourth International representative -- only two hours after arriving in Spain, and a quarter of an hour after meeting the POUM [Op. Cit., p. 139] -- the POUM were not
interested. The POUM have been both attacked (and claimed as their own) by Trotskyists ever since.

It is Morrow's attacks on anarchism, though, that have most readily entered leftist folklore -- even among Marxists who reject Leninism. Some of Morrow's criticisms are fair
enough -- but these were voiced by anarchists long before Morrow put pen to paper. Morrow, in fact, quotes and accepts the analyses of anarchists like Camillo Berneri ("Berneri
had been right" etc. [Op. Cit., p. 153]), and praises anarchists like Durruti ("the greatest military figure produced by the war" [Op. Cit., p. 224]) -- then sticks the boot into
anarchism. Indeed, Durruti's analysis is praised but he is transformed into "no theoretician, but an activist leader of masses. . . his words express the revolutionary outlook of
the class-conscious workers." [Op. Cit., p. 250] Of course, his words, activity and "outlook" (i.e. political analysis) did not spring out of thin air but rather, to state the
obvious, were informed by and reflected his anarchist politics, history, activity and vision (which in turn reflected his experiences and needs as a member of the working class).
Morrow obviously wanted to have his cake and eat it.

Typically for today's left, perhaps, the most quoted sections of Morrow's book are the most inaccurate. In the next eight sections we discuss some of the most inaccurate claims.
After that we point out that Morrow's analysis of the militias is deeply ironic given Trotsky's actions as leader of the Red Army. Then we discuss some of Morrow's inaccurate
assertions about anarchism in general.

Of course, some of the errors we highlight in Morrow's work are the product of the conditions in which it was written -- thousands of miles from Spain in America, dependent on
papers produced by Spanish Marxists, Anarchists and others. We cannot blame him for such mistakes (although we can blame the Trotskyist publisher who reprints his account without
indicating his factual errors and the Marxist writers who repeat his claims without checking their accuracy). We do, however, blame Morrow for his errors and misrepresentations of
the activities and politics of the Spanish Anarchists and anarchism in general. These errors derive from his politics and inability to understand anarchism or provide an honest
account of it.

By the end of our discussion we hope to show why anarchists argue that Morrow's book is deeply flawed and its objectively skewed by the authors politics and so cannot be taken at
face value. Morrow's book may bring comfort to those Marxists who look for ready-made answers and are prepared to accept the works of hacks at face-value. Those who want to learn
from the past -- instead of re-writing it -- will have to look elsewhere.

3. Did a "highly centralised" FAI control the CNT?

According to Morrow, "Spanish Anarchism had in the FAI a highly centralised party apparatus through which it maintained control of the CNT" [Op. Cit., p. 100]

In reality, the FAI -- the Iberian Anarchist Federation -- was founded, in 1927, as a confederation of regional federations (including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These
regional federations, in turn, co-ordinated local and district federations of highly autonomous anarchist affinity groups. In the words of Murray Bookchin:

    "Like the CNT, the FAI was structured along confederal lines: the affinity groups were linked together in a Local Federation and the Local Federation in District and Regional
    Federations. A Local Federation was administered by an ongoing secretariat, usually of three persons, and a committee composed of one mandated delegate from each affinity
    group. This body comprised a sort of local executive committee. To allow for a full expression of rank-and-file views, the Local Federation was obliged to convene assemblies of
    all the faistas in its area. The District and Regional Federations, in turn, were simply the Local federation writ large, replicating the structure of the lower body. All the
    Local Districts and Regional Federations were linked together by a Peninsular Committee whose tasks, at least theoretically, were administrative. . . [A FAI secretary] admits
    that the FAI 'exhibited a tendency towards centralism' . . . Yet it must also be emphasised that the affinity groups were far more independent than any comparable bodies in
    the Socialist Party, much less the Communist. . . the FAI was not an internally repressive organisation . . . Almost as a matter of second nature, dissidents were permitted a
    considerable amount of freedom in voicing and publishing material against the leadership and established policies." [The Spanish Anarchists, pp. 197-8]

And:

    "Most writers on the Spanish labour movement seem to concur in the view that, with the departure of the moderates, the CNT was to fall under the complete domination of the FAI
    . . . But is this appraisal correct? The FAI . . . was more loosely jointed as an organisation than many of its admirers and critics seem to recognise. It has no bureaucratic
    apparatus, no membership cards or dues, and no headquarters with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . . They jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity groups from
    the authority of higher organisational bodies -- a state of mind hardly conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation.

    "The FAI, moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which followed a fixed 'line' like the Communists and many Socialists. It had no official program by which
    all faistas could mechanically guide their actions." [Op. Cit., p. 224]

So, while the FAI may have had centralising tendencies, a "highly centralised" political party it was not. Further, many anarcho-syndicalists and affinity groups were not in the
FAI (though most seem to have supported it), and many FAI members put loyalty to the CNT (the anarcho-syndicalist union confederation) first. For instance, according to the minutes
of the FAI national plenum of January-February 1936:

    "The Regional Committee [of Aragon, Rioja, and Navarra] is completely neglected by the majority of the militants because they are absorbed in the larger activities of the CNT"

And:

    "One of the reasons for the poor condition of the FAI was the fact that almost all the comrades were active in the defence groups of the CNT" (report from the Regional
    Federation of the North).

These are internal documents and so unlikely to be lies. [Juan Gomez Casas, Anarchist Organisation: the History of the FAI, p. 165 and p. 168]

Anarchists were obviously the main influence in the CNT. Indeed, the CNT was anarcho-syndicalist long before the FAI was founded -- from its creation in 1910 the CNT had been
anarcho-syndicalist and remained so for 17 years before the FAI existed. However, Morrow was not the only person to assert "FAI control" of the CNT. In fact, the claim of "FAI
control" was an invention of a reformist minority within the organisation -- people like Angel Pestana, ex-CNT National Secretary, who wanted to turn the CNT into a politically
"neutral" union movement. Pestana later showed what he meant by forming the Syndicalist Party and standing for Parliament (the Cortes). Obviously, in the struggle against the
reformists, anarcho-syndicalists -- inside the FAI or not -- voted for people they trusted to run CNT committees. The reformists (called Treinistas) lost, split from the CNT
(taking about 10% of the membership with them), and the myth of "FAI dictatorship" was born. Rather than accept that the membership no longer supported them, the Treinistas
consoled themselves with tales that a minority, the FAI, had taken control of the CNT.

In fact, due to its decentralised and federal structure, the FAI could not have had the sort of dominance over the CNT that is often attributed to it. At union congresses, where
policies and the program for the movement were argued out:

    "[D]elegates, whether or not they were members of the FAI, were presenting resolutions adopted by their unions at open membership meetings. Actions taken at the congress
    had to be reported back to their unions at open meetings, and given the degree of union education among the members, it was impossible for delegates to support personal,
    non-representative positions." [Juan Gomez Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 121]

The union committees were typically rotated out of office frequently and committeemen continued to work as wage-earners. In a movement so closely based on the shop floor, the FAI
could not maintain influence for long if they ignored the concerns and opinions of co-workers. Moreover, only a minority of the anarcho-syndicalist activists in the CNT belonged to
the FAI and, as Juan Gomez Casas points out in his history of the FAI, FAI militants frequently had a prior loyalty to the CNT. Thus his summation seems correct:

    "As a minority organisation, the FAI could not possibly have had the kind of control attributed to it . . . in 1931 . . . there were fifty CNT members for each member of a
    FAI group. The FAI was strongly federalist, with its groups at the base freely associated. It could not dominate an organisation like the CNT, which had fifty times as many
    members and was also opposed to hierarchy and centralism. We know that FAI militants were also CNT militants, and frequently they were loyal first to the CNT. Their influence
    was limited to the base of the organisation through participation in the plenums of militants or unions meetings." [Op. Cit., p. 133]

He sums up by arguing:

    "The myth of the FAI as conqueror and ruler of the CNT was created basically by the Treinistas" [Op. Cit., p. 134]

Therefore, Morrow is re-cycling an argument which was produced by the reformist wing of the CNT after it had lost influence in the union rank-and-file. Perhaps he judges the FAI by
his own standards? After all, the aim of Leninists is for the vanguard party to control the labour unions in their countries. Anarchists reject such a vision and believe in union
autonomy -- influence of political parties and groups should only exist in as much as they influence the rank-and-file who control the union. Rather than aim to control the CNT,
the FAI worked to influence its membership. In the words of Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an influential anarchist militant in the CNT and FAI in his own right):

    "There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes in union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay my dues to the workers' union and when I
    intervene at union meetings I do it as someone who us exploited, and with the right which is granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants, whether they
    belong to the FAI or not." [cited by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]

In other words, the FAI "controlled" the CNT only to the extent it influenced the membership -- who, in fact, controlled the organisation. We must also note that Ascaso's comment
echoes Bakunin's that the "purpose of the Alliance [i.e. anarchist federation] is to promote the Revolution . . . it will combat all ambition to dominate the revolutionary movement
of the people, either by cliques or individuals. The Alliance will promote the Revolution only through the NATURAL BUT NEVER OFFICIAL INFLUENCE of all members of the Alliance." [
Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 387]

Regardless of Morrow's claims, the FAI was a federation of autonomous affinity groups in which, as one member put it, "[e]ach FAI group thought and acted as it deemed fit, without
bothering about what the others might be thinking or deciding . . . they had no . . . opportunity or jurisdiction . . . to foist a party line upon the grass-roots." [Francisco
Carrasquer, quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p. 28] There was co-ordination in a federal structure, of course, but that did not create a "highly centralised"
party-like organisation. Morrow judged the FAI according to his own standards, squeezing it into his ideological vision of the world rather than reporting the reality of the
situation (see Stuart Christie's work for a more detailed refutation of the usual Marxist and Liberal inventions of the activities and nature of the FAI).

In addition, Morrow's picture of the FAI implicitly paints the CNT as a mere "transmission belt" for that organisation (and so a re-production of the Bolshevik position on the
relationship of the labour unions and the revolutionary party). Such a picture, however, ignores the CNT's character as a non-hierarchical, democratic (self-managed) mass movement
which had many tendencies within it. It also fails to understand the way anarchists seek to influence mass organisations -- not by assuming positions of power but by convincing
their fellow workers' of the validity of their ideas in policy making mass assemblies (see section J.3.6 for more details).

In other words, Morrow's claims are simply false and express a total lack of understanding of the nature of the CNT, the FAI and their relationship.

4. What is the history of the CNT and the Communist International?

Morrow states that the "tide of the October Revolution had, for a short time, overtaken the CNT. It had sent a delegate to the Comintern [Communist International] Congress in
1921. The anarchists had then resorted to organised fraction work and recaptured it." [Op. Cit., p. 100] He links this to the FAI by stating "[t]henceforward . . . the FAI .
. . maintained control of the CNT." Given that the FAI was formed in 1927 and the CNT disassociated itself with the Comintern in 1922, five years before the FAI was created,
"thenceforward" does not do the FAI's ability to control the CNT before it was created justice!

Partly it is the inability of the Communist Party and its Trotskyist off-shoots to dominate the CNT which explains Morrow's comments. Seeing anarchism as "petty bourgeois" it is
hard to combine this with the obvious truth that a mass, revolutionary, workers' union could be so heavily influenced by anarchism rather than Marxism. Hence the need for FAI (or
anarchist) "control" of the CNT. It allows Trotskyists ignore dangerous ideological questions. As J. Romero Maura notes, the question why anarchism influenced the CNT "in fact
raises the problem why the reformist social democratic, or alternatively the communist conceptions, did not impose themselves on the CNT as they managed to in most of the rest
of Europe. This question . . . is based on the false assumption that the anarcho-syndicalist conception of the workers' struggle in pre-revolutionary society was completely at
odds with what the real social process signified (hence the constant reference to religious', 'messianic', models as explanations)." He argues that the "explanation of Spanish
anarcho-syndicalist success in organising a mass movement with a sustained revolutionary elan should initially be sought in the very nature of the anarchist concept of society and
of how to achieve revolution." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish Case", in Anarchism Today, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 78 and p. 65] Once we do that, we can see the weakness of
Morrow's (and others) "Myth of the FAI" -- having dismissed the obvious reason for anarchist influence, namely its practicality and valid politics, there can only be "control by
the FAI."

However, the question of affiliation of the CNT to the Comintern is worth discussing as it indicates the differences between anarchists and Leninists. As will be seen, the truth of
this matter is somewhat different to Morrow's claims and indicates well his distorted vision.

Firstly to correct a factual error. The CNT in fact sent two delegations to the Comintern. At its 1919 national congress, the CNT discussed the Russian Revolution and accepted a
proposition that stated it "declares itself a staunch defender of the principles upheld by Bakunin in the First International. It declares further that it affiliates provisionally
to the Third International on account of its predominantly revolutionary character, pending the holding of the International Congress in Spain, which must establish the foundations
which are to govern the true workers' International." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 220-1]

In June 1920, Angel Pestana arrived in Moscow and represented the CNT at the Second Congress of the Communist International. He was arrested when he arrived back in Spain and so
could not give his eye-witness account of the strangulation of the revolution and the deeply dishonest manipulation of the congress by the Communist Party. A later delegation
arrived in April 1921, headed by Andres Nin and Joaquin Maurin professing to represent the CNT. Actually, Nin and Maurin represented virtually no one but the Lerida local
federation (their stronghold). Their actions and clams were disavowed by a plenum of the CNT the following August.

How did Nin and Maurin manage to get into a position to be sent to Russia? Simply because of the repression the CNT was under at the time. This was the period when Catalan bosses
hired gun men to assassinate CNT militants and members and the police exercised the notorious practice known as ley de fugas (shot while trying to escape). In such a situation, the
normal workings of the CNT came under must stress and "with the best known libertarian militants imprisoned, deported, exiled, if not murdered outright, Nin and his group managed
to hoist themselves on to the National Committee . . . Pestana's report not being available, it was decided that a further delegation should be sent . . . in response to Moscow's
invitation to the CNT to take part in the foundation of the Red International of Labour Unions." [Ignaio de Llorens, The CNT and the Russian Revolution, p. 8] Juan Gomez Casas
confirms this account:

    "At a plenum held in Lerida in 1921, while the CNT was in disarray [due to repression] in Catalonia, a group of Bolsheviks was designated to represent the Spanish CNT in Russia
    . . . The restoration of constitutional guarantees by the Spanish government in April 1922, permitted the anarcho-syndicalists to meet in Saragossa in June 11 . . . [where
    they] confirmed the withdrawal of the CNT from the Third International and the entrance on principle into the new [revolutionary syndicalist] International Working Men's
    Association." [Anarchist Organisation: History of the FAI, p. 61]

We should note that along with pro-Bolshevik Nin and Maurin was anarchist Gaston Leval. Leval quickly got in touch with Russian and other anarchists, helping some imprisoned Russia
anarchists get deported after bringing news of their hunger strike to the assembled international delegates. By embarrassing Lenin and Trotsky, Leval helped save his comrades from
the prison camp and so saved their lives.

By the time Leval arrived back in Spain, Pestana's account of his experiences had been published -- along with accounts of the Bolshevik repression of workers, the Kronstadt
revolt, the anarchist movement and other socialist parties. These accounts made it clear that the Russian Revolution had become dominated by the Communist Party and the
"dictatorship of the proletariat" little more that dictatorship by the central committee of that party.

Moreover, the way the two internationals operated violated basic libertarian principles. Firstly, the "Red Labour International completely subordinated trade unions to the
Communist Party." [Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 38] This completely violated the CNT principle of unions being controlled by their members (via self-management
from the bottom up). Secondly, the congresses' methodology in its debates and decision-making were alien to the CNT tradition. In that organisation self-management was its pride
and glory and its gatherings and congresses reflected this. Pestana could not fathom the fierce struggle surrounding the make-up of the chairmanship of the Comintern congress:

    "Pestana says that he was particularly intrigued by the struggle for the chairmanship. He soon realised that the chair was the congress, and that the Congress was a farce. The
    chairman made the rules, presided over deliberations, modified proposals at will, changed the agenda, and presented proposals of his own. For a start, the way the chair handled
    the gavel was very inequitable. For example, Zinoviev gave a speech which lasted one and one-half hours, although each speaker was supposedly limited to ten minutes. Pestana
    tried to rebut the speech, but was cut off by the chairman, watch in hand. Pestana himself was rebutted by Trotsky who spoke for three-quarters of an hour, and when Pestana
    wanted to answer Trotsky's attack on him, the chairman declared the debate over." [Op. Cit., pp. 37-8]


In addition, "[i]n theory, every delegate was free to table a motion, but the chair itself selected the ones that were 'interesting.' Proportional voting [by delegation or
delegate] had been provided for, but was not implemented. The Russian Communist Party ensured that it enjoyed a comfortable majority." Peirats continues by noting that "[t]o top it
all, certain important decisions were not even made in the congress hall, but were made begin the scenes." That was how the resolution that "[i]n forthcoming world congresses of
the Third International, the national trade union organisations affiliated to it are to be represented by delegates from each country's Communist Party" was adopted. He also noted
that "[o]bjections to this decision were quite simply ignored." [ No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 224]

Many of the syndicalist delegates to this "pantomime" congress later meet in Berlin and founded the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association based on union autonomy,
self-management and federalism. Unsurprisingly, once Pestana and Leval reported back to their organisation, the CNT rejected the Bolshevik Myth and re-affirmed the libertarian
principles it had proclaimed at its 1919 congress. At a plenum of the CNT in 1922, the organisation withdrew its provisional affiliation and voted to join the syndicalist
International formed in Berlin.

Therefore, rather than the anarchists conducting "fraction work" to "recapture" the CNT, the facts are the pro-Bolshevik National Committee of 1921 came about due to the
extreme repression the CNT was suffering at the time. Militants were being assassinated in the streets, including committee members. In this context it is easy to see how an
unrepresentative minority could temporarily gain influence in the National Committee. Moreover, it was CNT plenary session which revoked the organisations provisional affiliation
to the Comintern -- that is, a regular meeting of mandated and accountable delegates. In other words, by the membership itself who had been informed of what had actually been
happening under the Bolsheviks. In addition, it was this plenum which agreed affiliation to the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association founded in Berlin during 1922
by syndicalists and anarchists horrified by the Bolshevik dictatorship, having seen it at first hand.

Thus the decision of the CNT in 1922 (and the process by which this decision was made) follow exactly the decisions and processes of 1919. That congress agreed to provisionally
affiliate to the Comintern until such time as a real workers' International inspired by the ideas of Bakunin was created. The only difference was that this International was formed
in Germany, not Spain. Given this, it is impossible to argue that the anarchists "recaptured" the CNT.

As can be seen, Morrow's comment presents radically false image of what happened during this period. Rather than resort to "fraction work" to "recapture" the CNT, the policies
of the CNT in 1919 and 1922 were identical. Moreover, the decision to disaffiliate from the Comintern was made by a confederal meeting of mandated delegates representing the
rank-and-file as was the original. The anarchists did not "capture" the CNT, rather they continued to influence the membership of the organisation as they had always done. Lastly,
the concept of "capture" displays no real understanding of how the CNT worked -- each syndicate was autonomous and self-managed. There was no real officialdom to take over, just
administrative posts which were unpaid and conducted after working hours. To "capture" the CNT was impossible as each syndicate would ignore any unrepresentative minority which
tried to do so.

However, Morrow's comments allow us to indicate some of the key differences between anarchists and Leninists -- the CNT rejected the Comintern because it violated its principles of
self-management, union autonomy and equality and built party domination of the union movement in its place.

5. Why did the CNT not join the Workers' Alliance?

Morrow in his discussion of the struggles of the 1930s implies that the CNT was at fault in not joining the Socialist UGT's "Workers' Alliance" (Alianza Obrera ). These were first
put forward by the Marxist-Leninists of the BOC (Workers and Peasants Bloc -- later to form the POUM) after their attempts to turn the CNT into a Bolshevik vanguard failed [Paul
Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 154]. Socialist Party and UGT interest began only after their election defeat in 1933. By 1934, however, there existed quite a
few alliances, including one in Asturias in which the CNT participated. Nationally, however, the CNT refused to join with the UGT and this, he implies, lead to the defeat of the
October 1934 uprising (see next section for a discussion of this rebellion).

However, Morrow fails to provide any relevant historical background to understand the CNT's decision. Moreover, their reasons why they did not join have a striking similarity to
Morrow's own arguments against the "Workers' Alliance" (which may explain why Morrow does not mention them). In effect, the CNT is dammed for having policies similar to Morrow's
but having principles enough to stick to them.

First, we must discuss the history of UGT and CNT relationships in order to understand the context within which the anarchists made their decision. Unless we do this, Morrow's
claims may seem more reasonable than they actually are. Once we have done this we will discuss the politics of that decision.

From 1931 (the birth of the Second Spanish Republic) to 1933 the Socialists, in coalition with Republicans, had attacked the CNT (a repeat, in many ways, of the UGT's collaboration
with the quasi-fascist Primo de Rivera dictatorship of 1923-30). Laws were passed, with Socialist help, making lightening strikes illegal and state arbitration compulsory.
Anarchist-organised strikes were violently repressed, and the UGT provided scabs -- as against the CNT Telephone Company strike of 1931. This strike gives in indication of the role
of the socialists during its time as part of the government (Socialist Largo Caballero was the Minister of Labour, for example):

    "The UGT . . . had its own bone to pick with the CNT. The telephone syndicate, which the CNT had established in 1918, was a constant challenge to the Socialists' grip on the
    Madrid labour movement. Like the construction workers' syndicate, it was a CNT enclave in a solidly UGT centre. Accordingly, the government and the Socialist Party found no
    difficulty in forming a common front to break the strike and weaken CNT influence.

    "The Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal and the Ministry of the Interior called out the Civil Guard to intimidate the strikers . . . Shedding all pretence of labour
    solidarity, the UGT provided the Compania Telefonica with scabs while El Socialista, the Socialist Party organ, accused the CNT of being run by pistoleros. Those tactics
    were successful in Madrid, where the defeated strikers were obliged to enrol in the UGT to retain their jobs. So far as the Socialists were concerned, the CNT's appeals for
    solidarity had fallen on deaf ears. . .

    "In Seville, however, the strike began to take on very serious dimensions. . . on July 20, a general strike broke out in Seville and serious fighting erupted in the streets.
    This strike . . . stemmed from the walkout of the telephone workers . . . pitched battles took place in the countryside around the city between the Civil Guard and the
    agricultural workers. Maura, as minister of interior, decided to crush the 'insurrection' ruthlessly. Martial law was declared and the CNT's headquarters was reduced to
    shambles by artillery fire. After nine days, during which heavily armed police detachments patrolled the streets, the Seville general strike came to an end. The struggle in the
    Andalusian capital left 40 dead and some 200 wounded." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, pp. 221-2]

Elsewhere, "[d]uring a Barcelona building strike CNT workers barricaded themselves in and said they would only surrender to regular troops. The army arrived and then machine-gunned
them as soon as they surrendered." [Antony Beevor, The Spanish Civil War, p. 33] In other words, the republican-socialist government repressed the CNT with violence as well as
using the law to undermine CNT activities and strikes.

Morrow fails to discuss this history of violence against the CNT. He mentions in passing that the republican-socialist coalition government "[i]n crushing the CNT, the troops
broadened the repression to the whole working class." He states that "[u]nder the cover of putting down an anarchist putsch in January 1933, the Civil Guard 'mopped up' various
groups of trouble makers. And encounter with peasants at Casas Viejas, early in January 1933, became a cause celebre which shook the government to its foundations." However, his
account of the Casas Viejas massacre is totally inaccurate. He states that "the little village . . ., after two years of patient waiting for the Institute of Agrarian Reform to
divide the neighbouring Duke's estate, the peasants had moved in and begun to till the soil for themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 22]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, we must note that the land workers (who were not, in the main, peasants) were members of the CNT. Secondly, as we pointed in
section 1, the uprising had nothing to do with land reform. The CNT members did not "till the soil", rather they rose in insurrection as part of a planned CNT-FAI uprising based on
an expected rail workers strike (the "anarchist putsch" Morrow mentions). The workers were too busy fighting the Civil and Assault Guards to till anything. He is correct in terms
of the repression, of course, but his account of the events leading up to it is not only wrong, it is misleading (indeed, it appears to be an invention based on Trotskyist ideology
rather than having any basis in reality). Rather than being part of a "broadened . . . repression [against] the whole working class," it was actually part of the "putting down"
of the anarchist revolt. CNT members were killed -- along with a dozen politically neutral workers who were selected at random and murdered. Thus Morrow downplays the role of the
Socialists in repressing the CNT and FAI -- he presents it as general repression rather than a massacre resulting from repressing a CNT revolt.

He even quotes a communist paper stating that 9 000 political prisoners were in jail in June 1933. Morrow states that they were "mostly workers." [p. 23] Yes, they were mostly
workers, CNT members in fact -- "[i]n mid-April [1933]. . . the CNT launched a massive campaign to release imprisoned CNT-FAI militants whose numbers had now soared to about 9
000." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 231-2]

Moreover, during and after CNT insurrections in Catalonia in 1932, and the much wider insurrections of January 1933 (9 000 CNT members jailed) and December 1933 (16 000 jailed)
Socialist solidarity was nil. Indeed, the 1932 and January 1933 revolts had been repressed by the government which the Socialist Party was a member of.

In other words, and to state the obvious, the socialists had been part of a government which repressed CNT revolts and syndicates, imprisoned and killed their members, passed laws
to restrict their ability to strike and use direct action and provided scabs during strikes. Little wonder that Peirats states " [i]t was difficult for the CNT and the FAI to get
used to the idea of an alliance with their Socialist oppressors." [Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 94]

It is only in this context can we understand the events of 1934 and the refusal of the CNT to run into the UGT's alliance. Morrow, needless to say, does not present this essential
context and so the reader cannot understand why the CNT acted as it did in response to Socialist appeals for "unity." Instead, Morrow implies that CNT-FAI opposition to "workers
alliances" were due to them believing "all governments were equally bad." [p. 29] Perhaps if Morrow had presented an honest account of the repression the republican-socialist
government had inflicted on the CNT then the reader could make an informed judgement on why anarchist opposition to the socialist proposals existed. Rather than being sectarian or
against labour unity, they had been at receiving end of extensive socialist scabbing and state repression.

Moreover, as well as the recent history of socialist repression and scabbing, there was also the experience of a similar alliance between the CNT and UGT that had occurred in 1917.
The first test of the alliance came with a miners strike in Andalusia, and a "CNT proposal for a joint general strike, to be initiated by UGT miners and railway workers, had been
rejected by the Madrid Socialists . . . the miners, after striking for four months, returned to work in defeat." Little wonder that "the pact was in shreds. It was to be eliminated
completely when a general strike broke out in Barcelona over the arrests of the CNT leaders and the assassination of Layret. Once again the CNT called upon the UGT for support. Not
only was aid refused but it was denied with an arrogance that clearly indicated the Socialists had lost all interest in future collaboration. . . The strike in Catalonia collapsed
and, with it, any prospect of collaboration between the two unions for years to come." [Bookchin, Op. Cit. , pp. 175-6]

Of course, such historical context would confuse readers with facts and so goes unmentioned by Morrow.

In addition, there was another reason for opposing the "workers' alliances" -- particularly an alliance between the UGT and CNT. Given the history of UGT and CNT pacts plus the
actions of the UGT and socialists in the previous government it was completely sensible and politically principled. This reason was political and flowed from the CNT's libertarian
vision. As Durruti argued in 1934:

    "The alliance, to be revolutionary, must be genuinely working class. It must be the result of an agreement between the workers' organisation, and those alone. No party,
    however, socialist it may be, can belong to a workers' alliance, which should be built from its foundations, in the enterprises where the workers struggle. Its representative
    bodies must be the workers' committee chosen in the shops, the factories, the mines and the villages. We must reject any agreement on a national level, between National
    Committees, but rather favour an alliance carried out at the base by the workers themselves. Then and only then, can the revolutionary drive come to life, develop and take
    root." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 154]

In the Central Region, Orobon Fernandez argued along similar lines in Madrid's La Tierra:

    "Revolutionary proletarian democracy is direct management of society by the workers, a certain bulwark against party dictatorships and a guarantee of the development of the
    revolution's forces and undertakings. . . what matters must is that general guidelines are laid down so that these may serve as a platform of the alliance and furnish a
    combative and constructive norm for the united forces . . . [These include:] acceptance of revolutionary proletarian democracy, which is to say, the will of the majority of
    the proletariat, as the common denominator and determining factor of the new order of things. . . immediate socialisation of the means of production, transportation, exchange,
    accommodation and finance . . . federated according to their area of interest and confederated at national level, the municipal and industrial organisations will maintain the
    principle of unity in the economic structure." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 74-5]

The May 1936 Saragossa congress of the CNT passed a resolution concerning revolutionary alliances which was obviously based on these arguments. It stated that in order "to make the
social revolution an effective reality, the social and political system regulating the life of the country has to be utterly destroyed" and that the "new revolutionary order will
be determined by the free choice of the working class." [quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit., p. 100]

Only such an alliance, from the bottom up and based on workers' self-management could be a revolutionary one. Indeed, any pact not based on this but rather conducted between
organisations would be a pact the CNT and the bureaucracy of the UGT -- and remove any possibility of creating genuine bodies of working class self-management (as the history of
the Civil War proved). Indeed, Morrow seems to agree:

    "The broad character of the proletarian insurrection was explained by the Communist Left (Trotskyist). It devoted itself to efforts to build the indispensable instrument of
    the insurrection: workers' councils constituted by delegates representing all the labour parties and unions, the shops and streets; to be created in every locality and joined
    together nationally . . . Unfortunately, the socialists failed to understand the profound need of these Workers' Alliances. The bureaucratic traditions were not to be so
    easily overcome . . . the socialist leaders thought that the Workers' Alliances meant they would have merely to share leadership with the Communist Left and other dissident
    communist groups . . . actually in most cases they [Workers' Alliances] were merely 'top' committees, without elected or lower-rank delegates, that is, little more than liaison
    committees between the leadership of the organisations involved." [Op. Cit. , pp. 27-8]

As can be seen, this closely follows Durruti's arguments. Bar the reference of "labour parties," Morrow's "indispensable instrument" is identical to Durruti's and other anarchist's
arguments against taking part in the "Workers' Alliances" created by the UGT and the creation of genuine alliances from the bottom-up. Thus Morrow faults the CNT for trying to
force the UGT to form a real workers' alliance by not taking part in what Morrow himself admits were "little more than liaison committees between the leadership"! Also, Morrow
argues that "[w] ithout developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it was inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental collaboration with the
bourgeoisie" and he asks "[h]ow could party agreements be the substitute for the necessary vast network of workers' councils?" [Op. Cit., p. 89 and p. 114] Which was, of course,
the CNT-FAI's argument. It seems strange that Morrow faults the CNT for trying to create real workers' councils, the "indispensable instrument" of the revolution, by not taking
part in a "party agreements" urged by the UGT which would undermine real attempts at rank-and-file unity from below.

Of course, Morrow's statement that "labour parties and unions" should be represented by delegates as well as "the shop and street" contradicts claims it would be democratic. After
all, that it would mean that some workers would have multiple votes (one from their shop, their union and their party). Moreover, it would mean that parties would have an influence
greater than their actual support in the working class -- something a minuscule group like the Spanish Trotskyists would obviously favour as would the bureaucrats of the Socialist
and Communist Parties. Little wonder the anarchists urged a workers' alliance made up of actual workers rather than an organisation which would allow bureaucrats, politicians and
sects more influence than they actually had or deserved.

In addition, the "Workers' Alliances" were not seen by the UGT and Socialist Party as an organisation of equals. Rather, in words of historian Paul Preston, "from the first it
seemed that the Socialists saw the Alianza Obrera was a possible means of dominating the workers movement in areas where the PSOE and UGT were relatively weak." [Op. Cit., p. 154]
The Socialist Party only allowed regional branches of the Alianza Obrera to be formed only if they could guarantee Party control would never be lost. [Adrian Schubert "The Epic
Failure: The Asturian Revolution of October 1934", in Revolution and War in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 127] Raymond Carr argues that the Socialists, "in spite of professions to
the contrary, wished to keep socialist domination of the Alianza Obrera" [Spain: 1808-1975, pp. 634-5f] And only one month after the first alliance was set up, one of its founder
members -- the Catalan Socialist Union -- left in protest over PSOE domination. [Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 157] In Madrid, the Alianza was "dominated by the
Socialists, who imposed their own policy." [Op. Cit., p. 154] Indeed, as Jose Peirats notes, in Asturias where the CNT had joined the Alliance, "despite the provisions of the terms
of the alliance to which the CNT had subscribed, the order for the uprising was issued by the socialists. In Oviedo a specifically socialist, revolutionary committee was secretly
at work in Oviedo, which contained no CNT representatives." [The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 78] Largo Caballero's desire for trade union unity in 1936 was from a
similar mould -- "[t]he clear implication was that proletarian unification meant Socialist take-over." Little wonder Preston states that "[i]f the use that he [Caballero] made of
the Alianza Obreras in 1934 had revealed anything, it was that the domination of the working class movement by the UGT meant far more to Largo Caballero than any future prospect of
revolution." [Preston, Op. Cit., p. 270]

As can be seen, the CNT's position seemed a sensible one given the nature and activities of the "Workers' Alliance" in practice. Also it seems strange that, if unity was the UGT's
aims, that a CNT call, made by the national plenary in February 1934, for information and for the UGT to clearly and publicly state its revolutionary objectives, met with no reply.
[Peirats, Op. Cit., p. 75] In addition, the Catalan Workers' Alliance called a general strike in March 1934 the day after the CNT's -- hardly an example of workers' unity. [Norman
Jones, "Regionalism and Revolution in Catalonia", Revolution and War in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 102]

Thus, the reasons why the CNT did not join in the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" are clear. As well as the natural distrust towards organisations that had repressed them and provided
scabs to break their strikes just one year previously, there were political reasons for opposing such an alliance. Rather than being a force to ensure revolutionary organisations
springing from the workplace, the "Workers' Alliance" was little more than pacts between the bureaucrats of the UGT and various Marxist Parties. This was Morrow's own argument,
which also provided the explanation why such an alliance would weaken any real revolutionary movement. To requote Morrow, "[w]ithout developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it
was inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental collaboration with the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., p. 89]

That is exactly what happened in July, 1936, when the CNT did forsake its anarchist politics and joined in a "Workers' Alliance" type organisation with other anti-fascist parties
and unions to set up the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" (see section 20). Thus Morrow himself provides the explanation of the CNT's political rationale for being wary
of the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" while, of course, refusing to provide the historical context the decision was made.

However, while the CNT's refusal to join the "Workers' Alliance" outside of Asturias may have been principled (and sensible), it may be argued that they were the only organisation
with revolutionary potential (indeed, this would be the only argument Trotskyists could put forward to explain their hypocrisy). Such an argument would be false for two reason.

Firstly, such Alliances may have potentially created a revolutionary situation but they would have hindered the formation of working class organs of self-management such as
workers' councils (soviets). This was the experience of the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias and of the Asturias revolt -- in spite of massive revolutionary upheaval such
councils based on delegates from workplace and community assembles were not formed.

Secondly, the CNT policy of "Unity, yes, but by the rank-and-file" was a valid method of "from the bottom up solidarity." This can be seen from just two examples -- Aragon in 1934
and Madrid in 1936. In Aragon, there was a "general strike that had totally paralysed the Aragonese capital throughout April 1935, ending . . . on 10 May. . . the Zaragoza general
strike had been a powerful advertisement of the value of a united working-class front . . . [However,] no formal agreement . . . had been reached in Zaragoza. The pact there has
been created on a purely circumstantial basis with a unity of trade-union action achieved in quite specific circumstances and generated to a considerable extent by the workers
themselves." [Graham Kelsey, Anarchism in Aragon, p. 72] In Madrid, April 1936 (in the words of Morrow himself) "the CNT declared a general strike in Madrid . . . The UGT had not
been asked to join the strike, and at first had denounced it . . . But the workers came out of all the shops and factories and public services . . . because they wanted to fight,
and only the anarchists were calling them to struggle." [Op. Cit., p. 41]

Thus Morrow's comments against the CNT refusing to join the Workers' Alliance do not provide the reader with the historical context required to make an informed judgement of
the CNT's decision. Moreover, they seem hypocritical as the CNT's reasons for refusing to join is similar to Morrow's own arguments against the Workers' Alliance. In addition,
the CNT's practical counter-proposal of solidarity from below had more revolutionary potential as it was far more likely to promote rank-and-file unity plus the creation of
self-managed organisations such as workers' councils. The Workers' Alliance system would have hindered such developments.

6. Was the October 1934 revolt sabotaged by the CNT?

Again, following Morrow, Marxists have often alleged that the Socialist and Workers Alliance strike wave, of October 1934, was sabotaged by the CNT. To understand this allegation,
you have to understand the background to October 1934, and the split in the workers' movement between the CNT and the UGT (unions controlled by the reformist Socialist Party, the
PSOE).

Socialist conversion to "revolution" occurred only after the elections of November 1933. In the face of massive and bloody repression (see last section), the CNT-FAI had agitated
for a mass abstention at the polling booth. Faced with this campaign, the republicans and socialists lost and all the laws they had passed against the CNT were used against
themselves. When cabinet seats were offered to the non-republican (fascist or quasi-fascist) right, in October 1934, the PSOE/UGT called for a general strike. If the CNT,
nationally, failed to take part in this -- a mistake recognised by many anarchist writers -- this was not (as reading Morrow suggests) because the CNT thought "all governments were
equally bad" [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 29], but because of well-founded, as it turned out, mistrust of Socialist aims.

A CNT call, on the 13th of February 1934, for the UGT to clearly and publicly state its revolutionary objectives, had met with no reply. As Peirats argues, " [t]hat the absence of
the CNT did not bother them [the UGT and Socialist Party] is clear from their silence in regards to the [CNT's] National Plenary's request." [Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution, p. 96] Rhetoric aside, the Socialist Party's main aim in October seems to have been to force new elections, so they could again form a (mildly reformist) coalition
with the Republicans (their programme for the revolt was written by right-wing socialist Indalecio Prieto and seemed more like an election manifesto prepared by the Liberal
Republicans than a program for revolutionary change). This was the viewpoint of the CNT, for example. Thus, the CNT, in effect, was to be used as cannon-fodder to help produce
another government that would attack the CNT.

As we discussed in the last section, the UGT backed "Workers Alliances" were little better. To repeat our comments again, the Socialist Party (PSOE) saw the alliances as a means of
dominating the workers movement in areas where the UGT was weak. The Socialist "Liaison Committee", for instance, set up to prepare for insurrection, only allowed regional branches
to take part in the alliances if they could guarantee Party control (see last section). Raymond Carr argues that the Socialists, "in spite of professions to the contrary, wished
to keep socialist domination of the Alianza Obrera." [Spain: 1808-1975, pp. 634-5f] Only one month after the first alliance was set up, one of its founder members -- the Socialist
Union of Catalonia -- left in protest over PSOE domination.

During October the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish north coast). However, before discussing that area, we must mention Madrid and Barcelona.
According to Morrow, Catalonia "should have been the fortress of the uprising" and that "[t]erribly discredited for their refusal to join the October revolt, the anarchists sought
to apologise by pointing to the repression they were undergoing at the time from Companys." [Op. Cit., p. 30 and p. 32] Morrow fails, however and yet again, to mention a few
important facts.

Firstly, the uprising in Catalonia was pushed for and lead by Estat Catala which had "temporary ascendancy over the other groups in the Esquerra" (the Catalan Nationalist Party
which was the Catalan government). "Companys felt obliged to yield to Dencas' [the leader of Estat Catala] demand that Catalonia should take this opportunity for breaking with
Madrid." [Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, pp. 282-3] Estat Catala "was a Youth movement . . . and composed mostly of workmen and adventurers -- men drawn from the same
soil as the sindicatos libres [boss created anti-CNT yellow unions] of a dozen years before -- with a violent antagonism to the Anarcho-Syndicalists. It had a small military
organisation, the escamots, who wore green uniforms. It represented Catalan Nationalism in its most intransigent form: it was in fact Catalan Fascism." [Op. Cit., p. 282] Gabriel
Jackson calls Estat Catala a "quasi-fascist movement within the younger ranks of the Esquerra." [The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939, p. 150] Ronald Fraser terms it
"the extreme nationalist and proto-fascist" wing of the party. [Blood of Spain, p. 535] Hugh Thomas notes "the fascist colouring of Dencas ideas." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 135]

In other words, Morrow attacks the CNT for not participating in a revolt organised and led by Catalan Fascists (or, at best, near fascists)!

Secondly, far from being apologetics, the repression the CNT was suffering from Dencas police forces was very real and was occurring right up to the moment of the revolt. In the
words of historian Paul Preston:

    "[T]he Anarchists bitterly resented the way in which the Generalitat had followed a repressive policy against them in the previous months. This had been the work of the
    Generalitat's counsellor for public order, Josep Dencas, leader of the quasi-fascist, ultra-nationalist party Estat Catala." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 176]

This is confirmed by anarchist accounts of the rising. As Peirats points out:

    "On the eve of the rebellion the Catalan police jailed as many anarchists as they could put their hands on . . . The union offices had been shut for some time. The press censor
    had completely blacked out the October 6th issue of Solidaridad Obrera . . . When the woodworkers began to open their offices, they were attacked by the police, and a furious
    gunfight ensured. The official radio . . . reported . . . that the fight had already began against the FAI fascists . . . In the afternoon large numbers of police and escamots
    turned out to attack and shut down the editorial offices of Solidaridad Obrera." [Peirats, Op. Cit., pp. 98-9]

In other words, the first shots fired in the Catalan revolt were against the CNT by those in revolt against the central government!

Why were the first shots of the revolt directed at the members of the CNT? Simply because they were trying to take part in the revolt in an organised and coherent manner as urged
by the CNT's Regional Committee itself. In spite of the mass arrests of anarchists and CNT militants the night before by the Catalan rebels, the CNT's Catalan Regional Committee
issued a clandestine leaflet that stated that the CNT "must enter the battle in a manner consistent with its revolutionary anarchist principles . . . The revolt which broke out
this morning must acquire the characteristics of a popular act through the actions of the proletariat . . . We demand the right to intervene in this struggle and we will take
this." A leaflet had to be issued as Solidaridad Obrera was several hours late in appearing due censorship by the Catalan state. The workers had tried to open their union halls
(all CNT union buildings had been closed by the Catalan government since the CNT revolt of December 1933) because the CNT's leaflet had called for the "[i]mmediate opening of our
union buildings and the concentration of the workers on those premises." [quoted by Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 85] The participation of the CNT in
the revolt as an organised force was something the Catalan rebels refused to allow and so they fired on workers trying to open their union buildings. Indeed, after shutting down
Solidaridad Obrera, the police then tried to break up the CNT's regional plenum that was then in session, but fortunately it was meeting on different premises and so they failed.
[Peirats, Op. Cit., pp. 85-6]

Juan Gomez Casas argues that:

    "The situation [in October 1934] was especially difficult in Catalonia. The Workers' Alliance . . . declared a general strike. Luis Companys, president of the Catalan
    Parliament, proclaimed the Catalan State within the Spanish Federal Republic . . . But at the same time, militants of the CNT and the FAI were arrested . . . Solidaridad Obrera
    was censored. The Catalan libertarians understood that the Catalan nationalists had two objectives in mind: to oppose the central government and to destroy the CNT. Jose
    Dencas, Counsellor of Defence, issued a strict order: 'Watch out for the FAI' . . . Luis Companys broadcast a message on October 5 to all 'citizens regardless of ideology.'
    However, many anarchosyndicalist militants were held by his deputy, Dencas, in the underground cells of police headquarters." [Op. Cit. , pp. 151-2]

Hence the paradoxical situation in which the anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and FAI members found themselves in during this time. The uprising was organised by Catalan fascists
who continued to direct their blows against the CNT. As Abel Paz argues, "[f]or the rank and file Catalan worker . . . the insurgents . . . were actually orienting their action in
order to destroy the CNT. After that, how could they collaborate with the reactionary movement which was directing its blows against the working class? Here was the paradox of the
Catalan uprising of October 6, 1934." [Durruti: The People Armed, p. 158]

In other words, during the Catalan revolt, "the CNT had a difficult time because the insurgents were its worst enemies." [Peirats, The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p.
98] However, the complexity of the actual situation does not bother the reader of Morrow's work as it is not reported. Little wonder, as Peirats argues, the "absurd contention
according to which the confederal proletariat of Catalonia betrayed their brethren in Asturias melts away in the face of a truthful narration of the facts." [The CNT in the Spanish
Revolution, vol. 1, p. 86]

In summary, therefore, Morrow expected the membership of the Catalan CNT and FAI to join in a struggle started and directed by Catalan fascists, whose leaders in the government
were arresting and shooting their members, censoring their press, closing their union offices and refusing them a role in the revolt as self-organised forces. We think that sums up
the validity of Trotskyism as a revolutionary theory quite well.

In Madrid, the revolt was slightly less farcical. Here the CNT joined the general strike. However, the UGT gave the government 24 hours notice of the general strike, allowing the
state to round up the Socialist "leaders," seize arm depots and repress the insurrection before it got started [Morrow, Op. Cit. , p. 30]. As Bookchin argues, the "massive strike
in Madrid, which was supported by the entire left, foundered for want of arms and a revolutionary sense of direction." [Op. Cit., p. 245] He continues:

    "As usual, the Socialists emerged as unreliable allies of the Anarchists. A revolutionary committee, established by the CNT and FAI to co-ordinate their own operations, was
    denied direly needed weapons by the UGT. The arms, as it turned out, had been conveniently intercepted by government troops. But even if they had been available, it is almost
    certain that the Socialists would not have shared them with the Anarchists. Indeed, relationships between the two major sectors of the labour movement had already been poisoned
    by the failure of the Socialist Youth and the UGT to keep the CNT adequately informed of their plans or confer with Anarchosyndicalist delegates. Despite heavy fighting in
    Madrid, the CNT and FAI were obliged to function largely on their own. When, at length, a UGT delegate informed the revolutionary committee that Largo Caballero was not
    interested in common action with the CNT, the committee disbanded." [Op. Cit., p. 246]

Bookchin correctly states that "Abad de Santillan was to observe with ample justification that Socialist attempts to blame the failure of the October Insurrection on Anarchist
abstention was a shabby falsehood" and quotes Santillan:

    "Can there be talk of abstention of the CNT and censure of it by those who go on strike without warning our organisation about it, who refuse to meet with the delegates of the
    National Committee [of the CNT], who consent to let the Lerrous-Gil Robles Government take possession of the arms deposits and let them go unused before handing them over to
    the Confederation and the FAI?" [Ibid.]

Historian Paul Preston confirms that in Madrid "Socialists and Anarchists went on strike . . ." and that "the Socialists actually rejected the participation of Anarchist and
Trotskyist groups who offered to help make a revolutionary coup in Madrid." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174] Moreover, "when delegates travelled secretly to Madrid to
try to co-ordinate support for the revolutionary Asturian miners, they were rebuffed by the UGT leadership." [Graham Kelsey, Anarchism in Aragon, p. 73]

Therefore, in two of the three centres of the revolt, the uprising was badly organised. In Catalonia, the revolt was led by fascist Catalan Nationalists who arrested and shot at
CNT militants. In Madrid, the CNT backed the strike and was ignored by the Socialists. The revolt itself was badly organised and quickly repressed (thanks, in part, to the actions
of the Socialists themselves). Little wonder Peirats asks:

    "Although it seems absurd, one constantly has to ask whether the Socialists meant to start a true revolution [in October 1934] in Spain. If the answer is affirmative, the
    questions keep coming: Why did they not make the action a national one? Why did they try to do it without the powerful national CNT? Is a peaceful general strike revolutionary?
    Was what happened in Asturias expected, or were orders exceeded? Did they mean only to scare the Radical-CEDA government with their action?" [The Anarchists in the Spanish
    Revolution, pp 95-6]

The only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish north coast). Here, the CNT had joined the Socialists and Communists in a "Workers Alliance". But, against the
alliance's terms, the Socialists alone gave the order for the uprising -- and the Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee starved the CNT of arms. This despite the CNT having
over 22 000 affiliates in the area (to the UGT's 40 000). We discuss the activities of the CNT during the revolt in Asturias later (in section 20) and so will not do so here.

Morrow states that the "backbone of the struggle was broken . . . when the refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the government to transport goods and troops."
[Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 30] Yet in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was needed) the main government attack was from a sea borne landing of Foreign Legion and
Moroccan troops - against the port and CNT stronghold (15 000 affiliates) of Gijon (and, we must stress, the Socialists and Communists refused to provide the anarchists of these
ports with weapons to resist the troop landings). Hence his claim seems somewhat at odds with the actual events of the October uprising.

Moreover, he seems alone in this claim. No other historian (for example, Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War, Raymond Carr in Spain: 1808-1975, Paul Preston in The Coming of
the Spanish Civil War, Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939) makes this claim. But, of course, these are not
Trotskyists and so can be ignored. However, for objective readers such an omission might be significant.

Indeed, when these other historians do discuss the crushing of the Asturias they all stress the fact that the troops came from the sea. For example, Paul Preston notes that "[w]ith
CEDA approval, Franco . . . insisted on the use of troops from Africa . . . they shipped Moorish mercenaries to Asturias." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 177] Gabriel
Jackson argues that the government "feared to send in the regular Army because of the strong possibility that the Spanish conscripts would refuse to fire on the revolutionaries --
or even desert to them. The War Minister . . . , acting on the advice of Generals Franco and Goded, sent in contingents of the Morrish regulares and of the Foreign Legions." These
troops arrived "at the ports of Aviles and Gijon." [The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939, p. 157]

Richard A. H. Robinson argues that it "was soon decided that the [Asturias] rebellion could only be crushed by experienced, professional troops. The other areas of Spain could not
be denuded of their garrisons in case there were other revolutionary outbreaks. Franco therefore called upon Colonel Yague to lead a force of Moorish regulars to help re-conquer
the province from the rebels." [ The Origins of Franco's Spain, pp. 190-1] Stanley G. Payne gives a more detailed account of the state's attack:

    "Army reinforcements were soon being rushed toward the region . . . Eduardo Lopez Ochoa . . . head[ed] the main relief column . . . he began to make his way eastward [from
    Galicia] with a modest force of some 360 troops in trucks, half of whom had to be detached on the way to hold the route open. Meanwhile . . . in the main Asturian coastal city
    of Gijon . . . reinforcements first arrived by sea on the seventh, followed by larger units from the Moroccan Protectorate on the tenth." [Spain's First Democracy, p. 219]

No mention of trains in these accounts, so indicating that Morrow's assertions are false. The main attack on Asturias, and so the transportation of troops and goods, was by sea,
not by trains.

In addition, these historians point to other reasons for the defeat of the revolt -- the amazingly bad organisation of it by the Socialist Party. Raymond Carr sums up the
overwhelming opinion of the historians when he says that "[a]s a national movement the revolution was a fiasco." [Op. Cit., p. 633] Hugh Thomas states that the revolt in Catalonia
was "crushed nearly as quickly as the general strike had been in Madrid." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 136] Brenan correctly argues that "[f]rom the moment that Barcelona capitulated
and the rising in Madrid fizzled out, the miners were of course doomed." [Op. Cit., p. 286] The failure of both these revolts was directly attributable to the policies and actions
of the Socialists who controlled the "Workers' Alliances" in both areas. Hence historian Paul Heywood:

    "[A]n important factor which contributed to the strikes' collapse and made the state's task easier was the underlying attitude of the Socialists. For all the talk of united
    action by the Left, the Socialists still wished to dominate any combined moves. Unwilling to cede its traditional hegemony, the PSOE rendered the Alianze obrera necessarily
    ineffective . . .

    "Thus, there was little genuine unity on the Spanish Left. Moreover, the strike was very poorly planned. Differences within the PSOE meant that there was no agreement even as
    to the programme of the strike. For the . . . leftists, it represented the initiation of a full-scale Socialist revolution; for . . . the centrists in the party, the aim of
    the strike was to force Alcala-Zamora to reconsider and invite the Socialists back into a coalition government with the Republicans." [Marxism and the Failure of Organised
    Socialism in Spain 1879-1936 pp. 144-5]

Significantly, Heywood argues that "[o]ne thing, however, did emerge from the October strike. The example of Asturias provided a pointed lesson for the Left: crucially, the key to
the relative success of the insurrection there was the participation of the CNT in an effective Alianza obrera. Without the CNT, the Asturian rising would have been as short-lived
and as easily defeated as those in Madrid and Barcelona." [Op. Cit., p. 145]

Having discussed both Madrid and Barcelona above, we leave it to the reader to conclude whether Morrow's comments are correct or whether a more likely alternative explanation for
the revolt's failure is possible.

However, even assuming Morrow's claims that the failure of the CNT rail workers' union to continue striking in the face of a completely farcical "revolt" played a key role in its
defeat were true, it does not explain many facts. Firstly, the government had declared martial law -- placing the railway workers in a dangerous position. Secondly, as Jerome R.
Mintz points out, railway workers "were represented by two competing unions -- the Sindicato Nacional Ferroviario of the UGT . . . and the CNT-affiliated FNIFF . . . The UGT . . .
controlled the large majority of the workers. [In 1933] Trifon Gomez, secretary of the UGT union, did not believe it possible to mobilise the workers, few of whom had revolutionary
aspirations." [The Anarchists of Casa Viejas, p. 178] Outside of Catalonia, the majority of the railway workers belonged to the UGT [Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives, p. 90f]
Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was needed) does not border Catalonia -- apparently the army managed to cross Spain on a rail network manned by a minority
of its workers.

However, these points are of little import when compared to the fact that Asturias the main government attack was, as we mentioned above, from a sea borne landing of Foreign Legion
and Moroccan troops. Troops from Morocco who land by sea do not need trains. Indeed, The ports of Aviles and Gijon were the principle military bases for launching the repression
against the uprising.

The real failure of the Asturias revolt did not lie with the CNT, it lay (unsurprisingly enough) with the Socialists and Communists. Despite CNT pleas the Socialists refused arms,
Gjon fell after a bloody struggle and became the main base for the crushing of the entire region ("Arriving at the ports of Aviles and Gijon on October 8, these troops were able to
overcome the resistance of the local fishermen and stevedores. The revolutionary committees here were Anarchist dominated. Though they had joined the rising and accepted the slogan
UHP [Unity, Proletarian Brothers], the Socialists and Communists of Oviedo clearly distrusted them and had refused arms to their delegate the day before." [Gabriel Jackson, Op.
Cit., p. 157]).

This Socialist and Communist sabotage of Anarchist resistance was repeated in the Civil War, less than two years later.

As can be seen, Morrow's account of the October Insurrection of 1934 leaves a lot to be desired. The claim that the CNT was responsible for its failure cannot withstand a close
examination of the events. Indeed, by providing the facts which Morrow does not provide we can safely say that the failure of the revolt across Spain rested squarely with the PSOE
and UGT. It was badly organised, they failed to co-operate or even communicate with CNT when aid was offered, they relied upon the enemies of the CNT in Catalonia and refused arms
to the CNT in both Madrid and Asturias (so allowing the government force, the main force of which landed by sea, easy access to Asturias). All in all, even if the minority of
railway workers in the CNT had joined the strike it would have, in all probability, resulted in the same outcome.

Unfortunately, Morrow's assertions have become commonplace in the ranks of the Left and have become even more distorted in the hands of his Trotskyist readers. For example, we find
Nick Wrack arguing that the "Socialist Party called a general strike and there were insurrectionary movements in Asturias and Catalonia, In Madrid and Catalonia the anarchist CNT
stood to one side, arguing that this was a 'struggle between politicians' and did not concern the workers even though this was a strike against a move to incorporate fascism into
the government." He continues, "[i]n Asturias the anarchist militants participated under the pressure of the masses and because of the traditions of unity in that area. However,
because of their abstentionist stupidity, the anarchists elsewhere continued to work, even working trains which brought the Moorish troops under Franco to suppress the Asturias
insurrection." ["Marxism, Anarchism and the State", pp. 31-7, Militant International Review, no. 46, p. 34]

Its hard to work out where to start in this travesty of history. We will start with the simple errors. The CNT did take part in the struggle in Madrid. As Paul Preston notes, in
Madrid the "Socialists and Anarchists went on strike" [ The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174] In Catalonia, as indicated above, the "insurrectionary movement" in Catalonia
was organised and lead by Catalan Fascists, who shot upon CNT members when they tried to open their union halls and who arrested CNT and FAI militants the night before the
uprising. Moreover, the people organising the revolt had been repressing the CNT for months previously. Obviously attempts by Catalan Fascists to become a government should be
supported by socialists, including Trotskyists. Moreover, the UGT and PSOE had worked with the quasi-fascist Primo do Rivera dictatorship during the 1920s. The hypocrisy is clear.
So much for the CNT standing "to one side, arguing that this was a 'struggle between politicians' and did not concern the workers even though this was a strike against a move to
incorporate fascism into the government."

His comments that "the anarchists . . . work[ed] trains which brought the Moorish troops under Franco to suppress the Asturias insurrection" is just plain silly. It was not
anarchists who ran the trains, it was railway workers -- under martial law -- some of whom were in the CNT and some of whom were anarchists. Moreover, as noted above the Moorish
troops under Franco arrived by sea and not by train. And, of course, no mention of the fact that the CNT-FAI in the strategically key port of Gijon was denied arms by the
Socialists and Communists, which allowed the Moorish troops to disembark without real resistance.

Morrow has a lot to answer for.

7. Were the Friends of Durruti Marxists?

It is sometimes claimed that the Friends of Durruti Group which formed during the Spanish Revolution were Marxists or represented a "break" with anarchism and a move towards
Marxism. Both these assertions are false. We discuss whether the Friends of Durruti (FoD) represented a "break" with anarchism in the following section. Here we indicate that
claims of the FoD being Marxists are false.

The Friends of Durruti were formed, in March 1937, by anarchist militants who had refused to submit to Communist-controlled "militarisation" of the workers' militias. During the
Maydays -- the government attack against the revolution two months later -- the Friends of Durruti were notable for their calls to stand firm and crush the counter-revolution.
During and after the May Days, the leaders of the CNT asserted that the FoD were Marxists (which was quite ironic as it was the CNT leaders who were acting as Marxists in Spain
usually did by joining with bourgeois governments). This was a slander, pure and simple.

The best source to refute claims that the FoD were Marxists (or becoming Marxist) or that they were influenced by, or moved towards, the Bolshevik-Leninists is Agustin Guillamon's
book The Friends of Durruti Group: 1937-1939. Guillamon is a Marxist (of the "left-communist" kind) and no anarchist (indeed he states that the "Spanish Revolution was the tomb of
anarchism as a revolutionary theory of the proletariat." [p. 108]). That indicates that his account can be considered objective and not anarchist wishful thinking. Here we use his
work to refute the claims that the FoD were Marxists. Section 9 discusses their links (or lack of them) with the Spanish Trotskyists.

So were the FoD Marxists? Guillamon makes it clear -- no, they were not. In his words, "[t]here is nothing in the Group's theoretical tenets, much less in the columns of El Amigo
del Pueblo [their newspaper], or in their various manifestos and handbills to merit the description 'marxist' being applied to the Group [by the CNT leadership]. They were simply
an opposition to the CNT's leadership's collaborationist policy, making their stand within the organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology." [p. 61] He stresses this in his
conclusion:

    "The Friends of Durruti was an affinity group, like many another existing in anarcho-syndicalist quarters. It was not influenced to any extent by the Trotskyists, nor by
    the POUM. Its ideology and watchwords were quintessentially in the CNT idiom: it cannot be said that they displayed a marxist ideology at any time . . . They were against
    the abandonment of revolutionary objectives and of anarchism's fundamental and quintessential ideological principles, which the CNT-FAI leaders had thrown over in favour of
    anti-fascist unity and the need to adapt to circumstances." [p. 107]

In other words, they wanted to return the CNT "to its class struggle roots." [ Ibid.] Indeed, Balius (a leading member of the group and writer of its 1938 pamphlet Towards a Fresh
Revolution) was moved to challenge the charges of "marxist" levelled at him:

    "I will not repay defamatory comment in kind. But what I cannot keep mum about is that a legend of marxism has been woven about my person and I should like the record put
    straight . . . It grieves me that at the present time there is somebody who dares call me a Marxist when I could refute with unanswerable arguments those who hang such an
    unjustified label on me. As one who attends our union assemblies and specific gatherings, I might speak of the loss of class sensibility which I have observed on a number of
    occasions. I have heard it said that we should be making politics -- in as many words, comrades -- in an abstract sense, and virtually no one protested. And I, who have been
    aghast at countless such instances, am dubbed a marxist just because I feel, myself to be a one hundred percent revolutionary . . . On returning from exile in France in the
    days of Primo de Rivera . . . I have been a defender of the CNT and the FAI ever since. In spite of my paralysis, I have done time in prison and been taken in manacles to
    Madrid for my fervent and steadfast championship of our organisations and for fighting those who once were friends of mine Is that not enough? . . . So where is this marxism of
    mine? Is it because my roots are not in the factory? . . . The time has come to clarify my position. It is not good enough to say that the matter has already been agreed. The
    truth must shine through. As far as I am concerned, I call upon all the comrades who have used the press to hang this label upon me to spell out what makes me a marxist." [El
    Amigo del Pueblo, no. 4, p. 3]

As can be seen, the FoD were not Marxists. Two more questions arise. Were they a "break" with anarchism (i.e. moving towards Marxism) and were they influenced by the Spanish
Trotskyists. We turn to these questions in the next two sections.

8. Did the Friends of Durruti "break with" anarchism?

Morrow claims that the Friends of Durruti (FoD) "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." [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 247] The truth of the matter is somewhat different.

Before discussing his assertion in more detail a few comments are required. Typically, in Morrow's topsy-turvy world, all anarchists like the Friends of Durruti (Morrow also
includes the Libertarian Youth, the "politically awakened" CNT rank and file, local FAI groups, etc.) who remained true to anarchism and stuck to their guns (often literally) --
represented a break with anarchism and a move towards Marxism, the revolutionary vanguard party (no doubt part of the 4th International), and a fight for the "workers state." Those
anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for "anti-fascist unity" (but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are the real anarchists because "class collaboration . .
. lies concealed in the heart of anarchist philosophy." [Op. Cit., p. 101]

Morrow, of course, would have had a fit if anarchists pointed to the example of the Social Democrat's who crushed the German Revolution or Stalin's Russia as examples that "rule by
an elite lies concealed in the heart of Marxist philosophy." It does not spring into Morrow's mind that those anarchists he praises are the ones who show the revolutionary heart of
anarchism. This can best be seen from his comments on the Friends of Durruti, who we argue were not evolving towards "Marxism" but rather were trying to push the CNT and FAI back
to its pre-Civil War politics and strategy. Moreover, as we argue in section 12 , anarchism has always argued for self-managed working class organisations to carry out and defend a
revolution. The FoD were simply following in the tradition founded by Bakunin.

In other words, we will show that they did not "break with" anarchism -- rather they refused to compromise their anarchism in the face of "comrades" who thought winning the war
meant entering the government. This is clear from their leaflets, paper and manifesto. Moreover, as will become obvious, their "break" with anarchism actually just restates pre-war
CNT policy and organisation.

For example, their leaflets, in April 1937, called for the unions and municipalities to "replace the state" and for no retreat:

    "We have the organs that must supplant a State in ruins. The Trade Unions and Municipalities must take charge of economic and social life." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op.
    Cit., p. 38]

This clearly is within the CNT and anarcho-syndicalist tradition. Their manifesto, in 1938, repeated this call ("the state cannot be retained in the face of the unions"), and made
three demands as part of their programme. It is worth quoting these at length:

    "I - Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council.

    "This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary Junta will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations. Account is to be taken of the number
    of comrades away at the front . . . The Junta will steer clear of economic affairs, which are the exclusive preserve of the unions.

    "The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows:

        "a) The management of the war b) The supervision of revolutionary order c) International affairs d) Revolutionary propaganda.

    "Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone growing attached to them. And the trade union assemblies will exercise control over the Junta's
    activities.

    "II - All economic power to the syndicates.

    "Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for constructive labour. . . It will be the unions that structure the proletarian economy.

    "An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration the natures of the Industrial Unions and Industrial federations, to improve on the co-ordination of economic
    activities.

    "III - Free municipality.

    [...]

    "The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society that fall outside the preserve of the unions. And since the society we are going to build shall be composed
    exclusively of producers, it will be the unions, no less, that will provide sustenance for the municipalities. . .

    "The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal and peninsula federations. Unions and municipalities will maintain liaison at local, comarcal and national
    levels." [Towards a Fresh Revolution]

This programme basically mimics the pre-war CNT policy and organisation and so cannot be considered as a "break" with anarchist or CNT politics or tradition.

Firstly, we should note that the "municipality" was a common CNT expression to describe a "commune" which was considered as "all the residents of a village or hamlet meeting in
assembly (council) with full powers to administer and order local affairs, primarily production and distribution." In the cities and town the equivalent organisation was "the
union" which "brings individuals together, grouping them according to the nature of their work . . . First, it groups the workers of a factory, workshop or firm together, this
being the smallest cell enjoying autonomy with regard to whatever concerns it alone . . . The local unions federate with one another, forming a local federation, composed of the
committee elected by the unions, and of the general assembly that, in the last analysis, holds supreme sovereignty." [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism, p. 25 and p. 24]

In addition, the "national federations [of unions] will hold as common property the roads, railways, buildings, equipment, machinery and workshops" and the "free municipality will
federate with its counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial federations." [Op. Cit., p. 29 and p. 26] Thus Puente's classic pre-war pamphlet is almost
identical to points two and three of the FoD Programme.

Moreover, the "Economic Council" urged by the FoD in point two of their programme is obviously inspired by the work of Abad Diego de Santillan, particularly his book After the
Revolution (El Organismo Economico de la Revolucion). Discussing the role of the "Federal Council of Economy", de Santillan says that it "receives its orientation from below and
operates in accordance with the resolutions of the regional and national assemblies." [p. 86] Just as the CNT Congresses were the supreme policy-making body in the CNT itself, they
envisioned a similar body emanating from the rank-and-file assemblies to make the guiding decisions for a socialised economy.

This leaves point one of their programme, the call for a "Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council." It is here that Morrow and a host of other Marxists claim the FoD broke
with anarchism towards Marxism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Firstly, anarchists have long supported the idea of workers' councils (or soviets) as an expression of working class power to control their own lives (and so society) -- indeed,
far longer than Marxists. Thus we find Bakunin arguing that 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." Anarchists "attain this goal . . . by the
development and organisation, not of the political but of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206
and p. 198] These councils of workers' delegates (workers' councils) would be the basis of the commune and defence of the revolution:

    "the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades. . .
    [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would] organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the
    expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp.
    170-1]

This perspective can be seen in the words of the German anarcho-syndicalist H. Ruediger (member of the IWA's secretariat in 1937) when he argued that for anarchists "social
re-organisation, like the defence of the revolution, should be concentrated in the hands of working class organisations -- whether labour unions or new organs of spontaneous
creation, such as free councils, etc., which, as an expression of the will of the workers themselves, from below up, should construct the revolutionary social community." [quoted
in The May Days in Barcelona, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 71]

Camillo Berneri sums up the anarchist perspective clearly when he wrote:

    "The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of theState as a consequence of the destruction of classes by the means of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' that
    is to say State Socialism, whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction of the classes by means of a social revolution which 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]

In other words, anarchists do support democratic organs of power when they are directly democratic (i.e. self-managed). "The basic idea of Anarchism is simple," argued Voline, "no
party . . . placed above or outside the labouring masses . . . ever succeeds in emancipating them . . . Effective emancipation can only be achieved by the direct, widespread, and
independent action of those concerned, of the workers themselves, grouped, not under the banner of a political party . . . but in their own class organisations (productive workers'
unions, factory committees, co-operatives, et cetra) on the basis of concrete action and self-government." [The Unknown Revolution, p, 197]

Anarchists oppose representative organs of power as these are governments and so based on minority power and subject to bureaucratic deformations which ensure un-accountablity from
below. Anarchists argue "that, by its very nature, political power could not be exercised except by a very restricted group of men at the centre. Therefore this power -- the real
power -- could not belong to the soviets. It would actually be in the hands of the party." [Voline, Op. Cit. , p. 213]

Thus Morrow's argument is flawed on the basic point that he does not understand anarchist theory or the nature of an anarchist revolution (also see section 12 ).

Secondly, and more importantly given the Spanish context, the FoD's vision has a marked similarity to pre-Civil War CNT organisation, policy and vision. This means that the idea of
a National Defence Council was not the radical break with the CNT that some claim. Before the civil war the CNT had long has its defence groups, federated at regional and national
level. Historian Jerome Mintz provides a good summary:

    "The policies and actions of the CNT were conducted primarily by administrative juntas, beginning with the sindicato, whose junta consisted of a president, secretary,
    treasurer, and council members. At each step in the confederation, a representative [sic! -- delegate] was sent to participate at the next organisational level -- from
    sindicato to the district to the regional confederation, then to the national confederation. In addition to the juntas, however, there were two major committee systems
    established as adjuncts to the juntas that had developed some autonomy: the comites pro presos, or committees for political prisoners, which worked for the release of prisoners
    and raised money for the relief of their families; and the comites de defensa, or defence committees, whose task was to stockpile weapons for the coming battle and to organise
    the shock troops who would bear the brunt of the fighting." [The Anarchists of Casas Viejas, p. 141]

Thus we see that the CNT had its "juntas" (which means council or committee and so does not imply any authoritarianism) as well as "defence committees" which were elected by
democratic vote in the union organisations decades before the FoD existed. The Defence Committees (or councils) were a CNT insurgent agency in existence well before July 1936 and
had, in fact, played a key role in many insurrections and strikes, including the events of July 1936. In other words, the "break" with anarchism Morrow presents was, in fact, an
exact reproduction of the way the CNT had traditionally operated and acted -- it is the same program of a "workers defence council" and "union management of the economy" that the
CNT had advocated prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. The only "break" that did occur post 19th of July was that of the CNT and FAI ignoring its politics and history in favour
of "anti-fascist unity" and a UGT "Workers' Alliance" with all anti-fascist unions and parties (see section 20).

Moreover, the CNT insurrection of December 1933 had been co-ordinated by a National Revolutionary Committee [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 235]. D.A. Santillan argued that
the "local Council of Economy will assume the mission of defence and raise voluntary corps for guard duty and if need be, for combat" in the "cases of emergency or danger of a
counter-revolution." [After the Revolution, p. 80] During the war itself a CNT national plenum of regions, in September 1936, called for a National Defence Council, with majority
union representation and based on Regional Defence Councils. The Defence Council of Aragon, set up soon after, was based on these ideas. The need for co-ordinated revolutionary
defence and attack is just common sense -- and had been reflected in CNT theory, policy and structure for decades.

An understanding of the basic ideas of anarchist theory on revolution combined with the awareness of the CNT's juntas (administrative councils or committees) had "defence
committees" associated with them makes it extremely clear that rather than being a "conscious break with the anti-statism of traditional anarchism" the FoD's programme was, in
fact, a conscious return to the anti-statism of traditional anarchism and the revolutionary program and vision of the pre-Civil War CNT.

This is confirmed if we look at the activities of the CNT in Aragon where they formed the "Defence Council of Aragon" in September 1936. In the words of historian Antony Beevor,
"[i]n late September delegates from the Aragonese collectives attended a conference at Bujaraloz, near where Durruti's column was based. They decided to establish a Defence
Council of Aragon, and elected as president Joaquin Ascaso." [Op. Cit., p. 96] In February 1937, the first congress of the regional federation of collectives was held at Caspe
to co-ordinate the activities of the collectives -- an obvious example of a regional economic council desired by the FoD. Morrow does mention the Council of Aragon -- "the
anarchist-controlled Council for the Defence of Aragon" [Op. Cit., p. 111] -- however, he strangely fails to relate this fact to anarchist politics. After all, in Aragon the
CNT-FAI remained true to anarchism, created a defence council and a federation of collectives. If Morrow had discussed the events in Aragon he would have had to draw the conclusion
that the FoD were not a "conscious break with the traditional anti-statism of anarchism" but rather were an expression of it.

This can be seen from the comments made after the end of the war by the Franco-Spanish Group of The Friends of Durruti. They clearly argued for a return to the principles of
anarchism and the pre-war CNT. They argued not only for workers' self-organisation and self-management as the basis of the revolution but also to the pre-war CNT idea of a workers'
alliance from the bottom up rather than a UGT-style one at the top (see section 5). In their words:

    "A revolution requires the absolute domination of the workers' organisations as was the case in July, 1936, when the CNT-FAI were masters . . . We incline to the view that
    it is necessary to form a Revolutionary Alliance; a Workers' Front; where no one would be allowed to enter and take their place except on a revolutionary basis . . . " [The
    Friends of Durruti Accuse]

As can be seen, rather than a "revolutionary government" the FoD were consistently arguing for a federation of workers' associations as the basis of the revolution. In this they
were loyally following Bakunin's basic arguments and the ideas of anarchism. Rather than the FoD breaking with anarchism, it is clear that it was the leading committees of the CNT
and FAI which actually broke with the politics of anarchism and the tactics, ideas and ideals of the CNT.

Lastly there are the words of Jaime Balius, one of the FoD's main activists, who states in 1976 that:

    "We did not support the formation of Soviets; there were no grounds in Spain for calling for such. We stood for 'all power to the trade unions'. In no way were we politically
    orientated . . . Ours was solely an attempt to save the revolution; at the historical level it can be compared to Kronstadt because if there the sailors and workers called for
    'all power to the Soviets', we were calling for all power to the unions." [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 381]

"Political" here meaning "state-political" -- a common anarchist use of the word. According to Fraser, the "proposed revolutionary junta was to be composed of combatants from the
barricades." [Ibid.] This echoes Bakunin's comment that the "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a Revolutionary Communal
Council composed of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." [Op. Cit., pp. 170-1]

As can be seen, rather than calling for power to a party or looking to form a government (i.e. being "politically orientated") the FoD were calling for "all power to the unions."
This meant, in the context of the CNT, all power to the union assemblies in the workplace. Decision making would flow from the bottom upwards rather than being delegated to a
"revolutionary" government as in Trotskyism. To stress the point, the FoD did not represent a "break" with anarchism or the CNT tradition. To claim otherwise means to misunderstand
anarchist politics and CNT history.

Our analysis, we must note, also makes a mockery of Guillamon's claim that because the FoD thought that libertarian communism had to be "impose[d]" and "defended by force of arms"
their position represented an "evolution within anarchist thought processes." [Op. Cit., p. 95] As has been made clear above, from Bakunin onwards revolutionary anarchism has been
aware of the need for an insurrection to create an anarchist society by destroying both the state and capitalism (i.e. to "impose" a free society upon those who wish hierarchy
to continue and are in a position of power) and for that revolution to be defended against attempts to defeat it. Similarly, his claim that the FoD's "revolutionary junta" was
the equivalent of what "others call the vanguard or the revolutionary party" cannot be defended given our discussion above -- it is clear that the junta was not seen as a form of
delegated power by rather as a means of defending the revolution like the CNT's defence committees and under the direct control of the union assemblies.

It may be argued that the FoD did not actually mean this sort of structure. Indeed, their manifesto states that they are "introducing a slight variation in anarchism into our
program. The establishment of a Revolutionary Junta." Surely this implies that they saw themselves as having moved away from anarchism and CNT policy? As can be seen from
Balius' comments during and after the revolution, the FoD were arguing for "all power to the unions" and stating that "apolitical anarchism had failed." However, "apolitical"
anarchism came about post-July 19th when the CNT-FAI (ignoring anarchist theory and CNT policy and history) ignored the state machine rather than destroying it and supplanting
it with libertarian organs of self-management. The social revolution that spontaneously occurred after July 19th was essentially economic and social (i.e. "apolitical") and not
"anti-political" (i.e. the destruction of the state machine). Such a revolution would soon come to grief on the shores of the (revitalised) state machine -- as the FoD correctly
argued had happened.

To state that they had introduced a variation into their anarchism makes sense post-July 1936. The "apolitical" line of the CNT-FAI had obviously failed and a new departure
was required. While it is clear that the FoD's "new" position was nothing of the kind, it was elemental anarchist principles, it was "new" in respect to the policy the CNT
("anarchism") had conducted during the Civil War -- a policy they justified by selective use of anarchist theory and principles. In the face of this, the FoD could claim they were
presenting a new variation in spite of its obvious similarities to pre-war CNT policies and anarchist theory. Thus the claim that the FoD saw their ideas as some sort of departure
from traditional anarchism cannot be maintained, given the obvious links this "new" idea had with the past policies and structure of the CNT. As Guillamon makes it clear, the FoD
made "their stand within the organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology" and "[a]t all times the Group articulated an anarcho-syndicalist ideology, although it also voiced
radical criticism of the CNT and FAI leadership. But it is a huge leap from that to claiming that the Group espoused marxist positions." [Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 95]

One last comment. Morrow states that the "CNT leadership . . . expelled the Friends of Durruti" [Op. Cit., p. 189] This is not true. The CNT leadership did try to expel the FoD.
However, as Balius points out, the "higher committees order[ed] our expulsion, but this was rejected by the rank and file in the trade union assemblies and at a plenum of FAI
groups held in the Casa CNT-FAI." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op. Cit., p. 73] Thus the CNT leadership could never get their desire ratified by any assembly of unions or FAI
groups. Unfortunately, Morrow gets his facts wrong (and also presents a somewhat false impression of the relationship of the CNT leadership and the rank and file).

9. Were the Friends of Durruti influenced by Trotskyists?

Morrow implies that the Bolshevik-Leninists "established close contacts with the anarchist workers, especially the 'Friends of Durruti'" [Op. Cit., p. 139] The truth, as usual, is
somewhat different.

To prove this we must again turn to Guillamon's work in which he dedicates a chapter to this issue. He brings this chapter by stating:

    "It requires only a cursory perusal of El Amigo del Pueblo or Balius's statements to establish that the Friends of Durruti were never marxists, nor influenced at all by the
    Trotskyists or the Bolshevik-Leninist Section. But there is a school of historians determined to maintain the opposite and hence the necessity for this chapter." [Op. Cit., p.
    94]

He stresses that the FoD "were not in any way beholden to Spanish Trotskyism is transparent from several documents" and notes that while the POUM and Trotskyists displayed "an
interest" in "bringing the Friends of Durruti under their influence" this was "something in which they never succeeded." [Op. Cit., p. 96 and p. 110]

Pre-May, 1937, Balius himself states that the FoD "had no contact with the POUM, nor with the Trotskyists." [Op. Cit., p. 104] Post-May, this had not changed as witness E. Wolf
letter to Trotsky in July 1937 which stated that it "will be impossible to achieve any collaboration with them . . . Neither the POUMists nor the Friends would agree to the meeting
[to discuss joint action]." [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8]

In other words, the Friends of Durruti did not establish "close contacts" with the Bolshevik-Leninists after the May Days of 1937. While the Bolshevik-Leninists may have wished for
such contacts, the FoD did not (they probably remembered their fellow anarchists and workers imprisoned and murdered when Trotsky was in power in Russia). They were, of course,
contacts of a limited kind but no influence or significant co-operation. Little wonder Balius stated in 1946 that the "alleged influence of the POUM or the Trotskyists upon us is
untrue." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 104]

It is hardly surprising that the FoD were not influenced by Trotskyism. After all, they were well aware of the policies Trotsky introduced when he was in power. Moreover, the
program of the Bolshevik-Leninists was similar in rhetoric to the anarchist vision -- they differed on the question of whether they actually meant "all power to the working class"
or not (see section 12 and 13). And, of course, the Trotskyists activities during the May Days amounted to little more that demanding that the workers' do what they were already
doing (as can be seen from the leaflet they produced -- as George Orwell noted, "it merely demanded what was happening already" [Homage to Catalonia, p. 221]). As usual, the
"vanguard of the proletariat" were trying to catch up with the proletariat.

In theory and practice the FoD were miles ahead of the Bolshevik-Leninists -- as to be expected, as the FoD were anarchists.

10. What does the Friends of Durruti's programme tell us about Trotskyism?

Morrow states that the FoD's "slogans included the essential points of a revolutionary program: all power to the working class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and
combatants, as the expression of the workers' power." [Op. Cit., p. 133] It is useful to compare Leninism to these points to see if that provides a revolutionary program.

Firstly, as we argue in more detail in section 11, Trotsky abolished the democratic organs of the Red Army. Lenin's rule also saw the elimination of the factory committee movement
and its replacement with one-man management appointed from above (see section 17 and Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details). Both these events occurred
before the start of the Russian Civil War in May 1918. Moreover, neither Lenin nor Trotsky considered workers' self-management of production as a key aspects of socialism. On this
level, Leninism in power did not constitute a "revolutionary program."

Secondly, Leninism does not call for "all power to the working class" or even "workers' power" to manage their own affairs. To quote Trotsky, in an article written in 1937, "the
proletariat can take power only through its vanguard." The working classes' role is one of supporting the party:

    "Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.

    "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard."

Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still by no means
the sovereign ruler of society." [Stalinism and Bolshevism] So much for "workers' power" -- unless you equate that with the "power" to give your power, your control over your
own affairs, to a minority who claim to represent you. Indeed, Trotsky even attacks the idea that workers' can achieve power directly via organs of self-management like workers'
councils (or soviets):

    "Those who propose the abstraction of the Soviets from 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.]

In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in fact, expressed by "the party dictatorship." In this Trotsky follows Lenin who asserted 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 . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by political parties. . . " [Left-wing Communism: An
    Infantile Disorder , pp. 25-6]

As has been made clear above, the FoD being anarchists aimed for a society of generalised self-management, a system in which working people directly controlled their own affairs
and so society. As these words by Lenin and Trotsky indicate they did not aim for such a society, a society based on "all power to the working class." Rather, they aimed for a
society in which the workers would delegate their power into the hands of a few, the revolutionary party, who would exercise power on their behalf. The FoD meant exactly what they
said when they argued for "all power to the working class" -- they did not mean this as a euphemism for party rule. In this they followed Bakunin:

    "[T]he federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a federation of the standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal
    Council will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . these deputies being invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all
    times. . . An appeal will be issued to all provinces, communes and associations inviting them to follow the example set . . . [and] to reorganise along revolutionary lines . .
    . and to then delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly (all of those deputies invested with binding mandates and accountable and subject to recall), in order to found
    the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . Thus it is through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the Revolution with an eye to the
    mutual defences of insurgent areas that the . . . Revolution, founded upon . . . the ruins of States, will emerge triumphant. . .

    "Since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere, and since the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free
    federation of agricultural and industrial organisations . . . being organised from the bottom up through revolutionary delegation . . ." [No God, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 155-6]

And:

    "Not even as revolutionary transition will we countenance national Conventions, nor Constituent Assemblies, nor provisional governments, nor so-called revolutionary
    dictatorships: because we are persuaded that revolution s sincere, honest and real only among the masses and that, whenever it is concentrated in the hands of a few governing
    individuals, it inevitably and immediately turns into reaction." [Op. Cit., p. 160]

As can be seen, Bakunin's vision is precisely, to use Morrow' words, "all power to the working class, and democratic organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the
expression of the workers' power." Thus the Friends of Durruti's program is not a "break" with anarchism (as we discussed in more detail in section 8) but rather in the tradition
started by Bakunin -- in other words, an anarchist program. It is Leninism, as can be seen, which rejects this "revolutionary program" in favour of all power to the representatives
of the working class (i.e. party) which it confuses with the working class as a whole.

Given that Morrow asserts that "all power to the working class" was an "essential" point of "a revolutionary program" we can only conclude that Trotskyism does not provide a
revolutionary program -- rather it provides a program based, at best, on representative government in which the workers' delegate their power to a minority or, at worse, on party
dictatorship over the working class (the experience of Bolshevik Russia would suggest the former quickly becomes the latter, and is justified by Bolshevik ideology).

By his own arguments, here as in so many other cases, Morrow indicates that Trotskyism is not a revolutionary movement or theory.

11. Why is Morrow's comments against the militarisation of the Militias ironic?

Morrow denounces the Stalinist militarisation of the militias (their "campaign for wiping out the internal democratic life of the militias") as follows:

    "The Stalinists early sought to set an 'example' by handing their militias over to government control, helping to institute the salute, supremacy of officers behind the lines,
    etc. . .

    "The example was wasted on the CNT masses . . . The POUM reprinted for distribution in the militias the original Red Army Manual of Trotsky, providing for a democratic internal
    regime and political life in the army." [Op. Cit., p. 126]

Morrow states that he supported the "democratic election of soldiers' committees in each unit, centralised in a national election of soldiers' delegates to a national council."
Moreover, he attacks the POUM leadership because it "forbade election of soldiers' committees" and argued that the "simple, concrete slogan of elected soldier's committees was the
only road for securing proletariat control of the army." He attacks the POUM because its "ten thousand militiamen were controlled bureaucratically by officials appointed by the
Central Committee of the party, election of soldiers' committees being expressly forbidden." [Op. Cit., p. 127, p. 128 and pp. 136-7]

Again, Morrow is correct. A revolutionary working class militia does require self-management, the election of delegates, soldiers' councils and so on. Bakunin, for example,
argued that the fighters on the barricades would take a role in determining the development of the revolution as the "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the
Barricades . . . composed of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." This would complement "the federative
Alliance of all working men's [and women's] associations . . . which will constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1] That is exactly why the CNT
militia organised in this fashion (and, we must note, they were only applying the organisational principles of the CNT and FAI -- i.e. anarchism -- to the militias). The militia
columns were organised in a libertarian fashion from the bottom up:

    "The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which come to accommodations among
    themselves for small-scale operations. Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which is
    directed by a war committee, on which the delegates from the centurias have their say. . . although every column retains its freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of
    forces, which is not the same thing as unity of command." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 256-7]

In other words, Morrow is arguing for an anarchist solution to the problem of defending the revolution and organising those who were fighting fascism. We say anarchist for good
reason. What is ironic about Morrow's comments and description of "workers' control of the army" is that these features were exactly those eliminated by Trotsky when he created the
Red Army in 1918! Indeed, Trotsky acted in exactly the same way as Morrow attacks the Stalinists for acting (and they used many of the same arguments as Trotsky did to justify it).

As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

    "Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The death penalty for disobedience under fire had been
    restored. So, more gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate living quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic forms of organisation, including
    the election of officers, had been quickly dispensed with." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 37]

He notes that "[f]or years, Trotskyist literature has denounced these reactionary facets of the Red Army as examples of what happened to it 'under Stalinism.'" [Op. Cit., p. 37f]
This claim was, amazingly enough, also made by Trotsky himself. In 1935 he re-wrote history by arguing that "[i]n the fire of the cruel struggle [of the Civil War], there could
not be even a question of a privileged position for officers: the very word was scrubbed out of the vocabulary." Only "after the victories had been won and the passage made to a
peaceful situation" did "the military apparatus" try to "become the most influential and privileged part of the whole bureaucratic apparatus" with "the Stalinist bureaucracy . . .
gradually over the succeeding ten to twelve years" ensuring for them "a superior position" and giving them "ranks and decorations." [How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?]

In fact, "ranks and decorations" and "superior" positions were introduced by Trotsky before the outbreak of the Civil War in May 1918. Having been responsible for such developments
you would think he would remember them!

On March 28th, 1918, Trotsky gave a report to the Moscow City Conference of the Communist Party. In this report he stated that "the principle of election is politically purposeless
and technically inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree" and that the Bolsheviks "fac[ed] the task of creating a regular Army." Why the change? Simply
because the Bolshevik Party held power ("political power is in the hands of the same working class from whose ranks the Army is recruited"). Of course, power was actually held by
the Bolshevik party, not the working class, but never fear:

    "Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system under which the government is headed by persons who have been directly elected by the Soviets of Workers',
    Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, 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, and, therefore, there cannot be any grounds for fearing the appointment of members of the commanding staff by the organs of
    the Soviet Power." [Work, Discipline, Order]

Of course, most workers' are well aware that the administration of a trade union usually works against them during periods of struggle. Indeed, so are most Trotskyists as they
often denounce the betrayals by that administration. Thus Trotsky's own analogy indicates the fallacy of his argument. Elected officials do not necessary reflect the interests
of those who elected them. That is why anarchists have always supported delegation rather than representation combined with decentralisation, strict accountability and the power
of instant recall. In a highly centralised system (as created by the Bolsheviks and as exists in most social democratic trade unions) the ability to recall an administration is
difficult as it requires the agreement of all the people. Thus there are quite a few grounds for fearing the appointment of commanders by the government -- no matter which party
makes it up.

If, as Morrow argues, the "simple, concrete slogan of elected soldier's committees was the only road for securing proletariat control of the army" then Trotsky's regime in the Red
Army ensured the defeat of proletarian control of that organisation. The question Morrow raises of who would control the army, the working class or the bourgeois failed to realise
the real question -- who was to control the army, the working class, the bourgeois or the state bureaucracy. Trotsky ensured that it would be the latter.

Hence Morrow's own arguments indicate the anti-revolutionary nature of Trotskyism -- unless, of course, we decide to look only at what people say and not what they do.

Of course some Trotskyists know what Trotsky actually did when he held power and try and present apologetics for his obvious destruction of soldiers' democracy. One argues that
the "Red Army, more than any other institution of the civil war years, embodied the contradiction between the political consciousness and circumstantial coercion. On the one hand
the creation of a Red Army was a retreat: it was a conscripted not a voluntary army; officers were appointed not elected . . . But the Red Army was also filled with a magnificent
socialist consciousness." [John Rees, "In Defence of October", International Socialism, no. 52, pp. 3-82, p. 46]

This argument is somewhat weak for two reasons.

Firstly, the regressive features of the Red Army appeared before the start of the Civil War. It was a political decision to organise in this way, a decision not justified at the
time in terms of circumstantial necessity. Indeed, far from it (like most of the other Bolshevik policies of the period). Rather it was justified under the rather dubious rationale
that workers did not need to fear the actions of a workers' state. Circumstances were not mentioned at all nor was the move considered as a retreat or as a defeat. It was not even
considered as a matter of principle.

This perspective was reiterated by Trotsky after the end of the Civil War. Writing in 1922, he argued that:

    "There was and could be no question of controlling troops by means of elected committees and commanders who were subordinate to these committees and might be replaced at any
    moment . . . [The old army] had carried out a social revolution within itself, casting aside the commanders from the landlord and bourgeois classes and establishing organs of
    revolutionary self-government, in the shape of the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies. These organisational and political measures were correct and necessary from the standpoint of
    breaking up the old army. But a new army capable of fighting could certainly not grow directly out of them . . . The attempt made to apply our old organisational methods to
    the building of a Red Army threatened to undermine it from the very outset . . . the system of election could in no way secure competent, suitable and authoritative commanders
    for the revolutionary army. The Red Army was built from above, in accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the working class. Commanders were selected and tested
    by the organs of the Soviet power and the Communist Party. Election of commanders by the units themselves -- which were politically ill-educated, being composed of recently
    mobilised young peasants -- would inevitably have been transformed into a game of chance, and would often, in fact, have created favourable circumstances for the machinations
    of various intriguers and adventurers. Similarly, the revolutionary army, as an army for action and not as an arena of propaganda, was incompatible with a regime of elected
    committees, which in fact could not but destroy all centralised control." [The Path of the Red Army]

If a "circumstantial" factor exists in this rationale, it is the claim that the soldiers were "politically ill-educated." However, every mass movement or revolution starts with
those involved being "politically ill-educated." The very process of struggle educates them politically. A key part of this radicalisation is practising self-management and
self-organisation -- in other words, in participating in the decision making process of the struggle, by discussing ideas and actions, by hearing other viewpoints, electing and
mandating delegates. To remove this ensures that those involved remain "politically ill-educated" and, ultimately, incapable of self-government. It also contains the rationale for
continuing party dictatorship:

    "If some people . . . have assumed the right to violate everybody's freedom on the pretext of preparing the triumph of freedom, they will always find that the people are not
    yet sufficiently mature, that the dangers of reaction are ever-present, that the education of the people has not yet been completed. And with these excuses they will seek to
    perpetuate their own power." [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 52]

In addition, Trotsky's rationale refutes any claim that Bolshevism is somehow "fundamentally" democratic. The ramifications of it were felt everywhere in the soviet system as the
Bolsheviks ignored the "wrong" democratic decisions made by the working masses and replaced their democratic organisations with appointees from above. Indeed, Trotsky admits that
the "Red Army was built from above, in accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the working class." Which means, to state the obvious, appointment from above, the
dismantling of self-government, and so on are "in accordance with the principles" of Trotskyism. These comments were not made in the heat of the civil war, but afterward during
peacetime. Notice Trotsky admits that a "social revolution" had swept through the Tsarist army. His actions, he also admits, reversed that revolution and replaced its organs of
"self-government" with ones identical to the old regime. When that happens it is usually called by its true name, namely counter-revolution.

For a Trotskyist, therefore, to present themselves as a supporter of self-managed militias is the height of hypocrisy. The Stalinists repeated the same arguments used by Trotsky
and acted in exactly the same way in their campaign against the CNT and POUM militias. Certain acts have certain ramifications, no matter who does them or under what government.
In other words, abolishing democracy in the army will generate autocratic tendencies which will undermine socialistic ones no matter who does it. The same means cannot be used to
serve different ends as there is an intrinsic relationship between the instruments used and the results obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not encourage democracy in the
army or the workplace! Just as the capitalist workplace is organised to produce proletarians and capital along with cloth and steel, the capitalist army is organised to protect and
reinforce minority power. The army and the capitalist workplace are not simply means or neutral instruments. Rather they are social structures which generate, reinforce and protect
specific social relations. This is what the Russian masses instinctively realised and conducted a social-revolution in both the army and workplace to transform these structures
into ones which would enhance rather than crush freedom and working class autonomy. The Bolsheviks reversed these movements in favour of structures which reproduced capitalist
social relationships and justified it in terms of "socialism." Unfortunately, capitalist means and organisations would only generate capitalist ends.

It was for these reasons that the CNT and its militias were organised from the bottom up in a self-managed way. It was the only way socialists and a socialist society could be
created -- that is why anarchists are anarchists, we recognise that a socialist (i.e. libertarian) society cannot be created by authoritarian organisations. As the justly famous
Sonvillier Circular argued "[h]ow could one expect an egalitarian society to emerge out of an authoritarian organisation? It is impossible." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin:
The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 61] Just as the capitalist state cannot be utilised by the working class for its own ends, capitalist/statist organisational principles such as
appointment, autocratic management, centralisation and delegation of power and so on cannot be utilised for social liberation. They are not designed to be used for that purpose
(and, indeed, they were developed in the first place to stop it and enforce minority rule!).

In addition, to abolish democracy on the pretext that people are not ready for it ensures that it will never exist. Anarchists, in contrast, argue that "[o] nly freedom or the
struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 59]

Secondly, how can a "socialist consciousness" be encouraged, or continue to exist, without socialist institutions to express it? Such a position is idealistic nonsense, expressing
the wishful notion that the social relationships people experiences does not impact on those involved. In effect, Rees is arguing that as long as the leaders have the "right ideas"
it does not matter how an organisation is structured. However, how people develop, the ideas they have in their heads, are influenced by the relations they create with each other
-- autocratic organisations do not encourage self-management or socialism, they produce bureaucrats and subjects.

An autocratic organisation cannot encourage a socialist consciousness by its institutional life, only in spite of it. For example, the capitalist workplace encourages a spirit
of revolt and solidarity in those subject to its hierarchical management and this is expressed in direct action -- by resisting the authority of the boss. It only generates a
socialist perspective via resistance to it. Similarly with the Red Army. Education programs to encourage reading and writing does not generate socialists, it generates soldiers who
are literate. If these soldiers do not have the institutional means to manage their own affairs, a forum to discuss political and social issues, then they remain order takers and
any socialist conscious will wither and die.

The Red Army was based on the fallacy that the structure of an organisation is unimportant and it is the politics of those in charge that matter (Marxists make a similar claim for
the state, so we should not be too surprised). However, it is no co-incidence that bourgeois structures are always hierarchical -- self-management is a politically educational
experience which erodes the power of those in charge and transforms those who do it. It is to stop this development, to protect the power of the ruling few, that the bourgeois
always turn to centralised, hierarchical structures -- they reinforce elite rule. You cannot use the same form of organisation and expect different results -- they are designed
that way for a reason! To twitter on about the Red Army being "filled with a magnificent socialist consciousness" while justifying the elimination of the only means by which that
consciousness could survive, prosper and grow indicates a complete lack of socialist politics and any understanding of materialist philosophy.

Moreover, one of the basic principles of the anarchist militia was equality between all members. Delegates received the same pay, ate the same food, wore the same clothes as the
rest of the unit. Not so in the Red Army. Trotsky thought, when he was in charge of it, that inequality was "in some cases . . . quite explicable and unavoidable" and that "[e]very
Red Army warrior fully accepts that the commander of his unit should enjoy certain privileges as regards lodging, means of transport and even uniform." [More Equality!]

Of course, Trotsky would think that, being the head commander of the Army. Unfortunately, because soldier democracy had been abolished by decree, we have no idea whether the rank
and file of the Red Army agreed with him. For Trotsky, privilege "is, in itself, in certain cases, inevitable" but "[o]stentatious indulgence in privilege is not just evil, it is a
crime." Hence his desire for "more" equality rather than equality -- to aim for "eliminating the most abnormal [!] phenomena, softening [!] the inequality that exists" rather than
abolish it as they did in the CNT militias. [Op. Cit.]

But, of course, such inequalities that existed in the Red Army are to be expected in an autocratically run organisation. The inequality inherent in hierarchy, the inequality in
power between the order giver and order taker, will, sooner or later, be reflected in material inequality. As happened in the Red Army (and all across the "workers' state"). All
Trotsky wanted was for those in power to be respectable in their privilege rather than showing it off. The anarchist militias did not have this problem because being libertarian,
delegates were subject to recall and power rested with the rank and file, not an elected government.

As another irony of history, Morrow quotes a Bolshevik-Leninist leaflet (which "points the road") as demanding "[e]qual pay for officers and soldiers." [Op. Cit., p. 191] Obviously
these good Trotskyists had no idea what their hero actually wrote on this subject or did when in power. We have to wonder how long their egalitarian demands would have survived
once they had acquired power -- if the experience of Trotsky in power is anything to go by, not very long.

Trotsky did not consider how the abolition of democracy and its replacement with an autocratic system would effect the morale or consciousness of the soldiers subject to it. He
argued that in the Red Army "the best soldier does not mean at all the most submissive and uncomplaining." Rather, "the best soldier will nearly always be sharper, more observant
and critical than the others. . . by his critical comments, based on facts accessible to all, he will pretty often undermine the prestige of the commanders and commissars in
the eyes of the mass of the soldiers." However, not having a democratic army the soldiers could hardly express their opinion other than rebellion or by indiscipline. Trotsky,
however, adds a comment that makes his praise of critical soldiers seem less than sincere. He states that "counter-revolutionary elements, agents of the enemy, make conscious and
skilful use of the circumstances I have mentioned [presumably excessive privilege rather than critical soldiers, but who can tell] in order to stir up discontent and intensify
antagonism between rank and file and the commanding personnel." [Op. Cit.] The question, of course, arises of who can tell the difference between a critical soldier and a
"counter-revolutionary element"? Without a democratic organisation, soldier are dependent (as in any other hierarchy) on the power of the commanders, commissars and, in the Red
Army, the Bolshevik Secret Police (the Cheka). In other words, members of the very class of autocrats their comments are directed against.

Without democratic organisation, the Red Army could never be a means for creating a socialist society, only a means of reproducing autocratic organisation. The influence of the
autocratic organisation created by Trotsky had a massive impact on the development of the Soviet State. According to Trotsky himself:

    "The demobilisation of the Red Army of five million played no small role in the formation of the bureaucracy. The victorious commanders assumed leading posts in the local
    Soviets, in economy, in education, and they persistently introduced everywhere that regime which had ensured success in the civil war. Thus on all sides the masses were pushed
    away gradually from actual participation in the leadership of the country." [The Revolution Betrayed]

Obviously Trotsky had forgotten who created the regime in the Red Army in the first place! He also seems to have forgotten that after militarising the Red Army, he turned his power
to militarising workers (starting with the railway workers). He also forgets that Lenin had been arguing that workers' must " unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders
of labour" from April 1918 along with granting "individual executives dictatorial power (or 'unlimited' powers)" and 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]

In other words, Lenin urged the creation of, and implemented, bourgeois forms of workplace management based on the appointment of managers from above. To indicate that this was not
in contradiction with Soviet principles, he points to the example of bourgeois revolutions! As if bourgeois methods do not reflect bourgeois interests and goals. In addition, these
"dictators" were given the same autocratic powers Trotsky claimed the demobilisation of the Red Army four years later had "persistently introduced everywhere." Yes, "on all sides
the masses were pushed away gradually from actual participation in the leadership of the country" but the process had started immediately after the October Revolution and was urged
and organised by Lenin and Trotsky before the Civil War had started.

Lenin's support for appointment of ("dictatorial") managers from above makes Trotsky's 1922 comment that the "Red Army was built from above, in accordance with the principles
of the dictatorship of the working class" take on a new light. [The Path of the Red Army] After all, Lenin argued for an economy system built from above via the appointment of
managers before the start of the Civil War. The Red Army was created from above via the appointment of officers before the start of the Civil War. Things had certainly changed
since Lenin had argued in The State and Revolution that "[a]ll officials, without exception, [would be] elected and subject to recall at any time." This would "serve as the bridge
between capitalism and socialism." [The Essential Lenin, p. 302] One major difference, given Trotsky's rationales, seems to be that the Bolsheviks were now in power and so election
and recall without exception could be forgotten and replaced by appointment.

In summary, Trotsky's argument against functional democracy in the Red Army could, and was, used to justify the suppression of any democratic decision or organisation of the
working class the Bolshevik government disapproved of. He used the same argument, for example, to justify the undermining of the Factory Committee movement and the struggle
for workers' control in favour of one-man management -- the form of management in the workplace was irrelevant as the workers' were now citizens of a workers' state and under
a workers' government (see section 17). Needless to say, a state which eliminates functional democracy in the grassroots will not stay democratic for long (and to remain the
sovereign power in society, any state will have to eliminate it or, at the very least, bring it under central control -- as institutionalised in the USSR constitution of 1918).

Instead of seeing socialism as a product of free association, of working class self-organisation from the bottom up by self-managed organisations, Trotsky saw it as a centralised,
top-down system. Of course, being a democrat of sorts he saw the Bolshevik Government as being elected by the mass of the population (or, more correctly, he saw it being elected
by the national congress of soviets). However, his vision of centralisation of power provided the rationale for destroying functional democracy in the grass-roots -- and without
healthy roots, any plant will wither and die. Little wonder, then, that the Bolshevik experiment proved such a disaster -- yes, the civil war did not help but the logic of
Bolshevism has started to undermine working class self-management before is started.

Thus Trotsky's argument that the democratic nature of a workers' army or militia is irrelevant because a "workers' state" exists is flawed on many different levels. And the
experience of Trotsky in power indicates well the poverty of Trotskyism and Morrow's criticism of the CNT -- his suggestion for a self-managed militia is pure anarchism with
nothing to do with Leninism and the experience of Bolshevism in power.

12. What is ironic about Morrow's vision of revolution?

Equally ironic as Morrow's comments concerning democratic militias (see last section) is his argument that the revolution needed to "give the factory committees, militia
committees, peasant committees, a democratic character, by having them elected by all workers in each unit; to bring together these elected delegates in village, city, regional
councils . . . [and] a national congress." [Op. Cit., p. 100]

Such a position is correct, such developments were required to ensure the success of the revolution. However, it is somewhat ironic that a Trotskyist would present them as somehow
being opposed to anarchism when, in fact, they are pure anarchism. Indeed, anarchists were arguing in favour of workers' councils more than five decades before Lenin discovered the
importance of the Russian Soviets in 1917. Moreover, as we will indicate, what is even more ironic is the fact that Trotskyism does not actually see these organs as an expression
of working class self-management and power but rather as a means of the party to take power. In addition, we must also note that it was Lenin and Trotsky who helped undermine the
Russian workers' factory committees, militia committees and so on in favour of party rule. We will discuss each of these ironies in turn.

Firstly, as noted, such Morrow's stated position is exactly what Bakunin and the anarchist movement had been arguing since the 1860s. To quote Bakunin:

    "the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . . constitute the Commune . . . 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, p. 170-2]

    "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]

Here is Kropotkin presenting the same vision:

    "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the organisation of men [and women] in accordance
    with their different functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for
    mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 79]

    "the complete independence of the Communes, the Federation of free communes and the social revolution in the communes, that is to say the formation of associated productive
    groups in place of the state organisation." [quoted by Camillo Berneri, Peter Kropotkin: His Federalist Ideas]

Bakunin also mentions that those defending the revolution would have a say in the revolutionary structure -- the "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the
Barricades and by the creation of a Revolutionary Council composed of . . . delegates from each barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." [Op.
Cit., p. 171] This obviously parallels the democratic nature of the CNT militias.

Interestingly enough, Marx commented that "odd barricades, these barricades of the Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist organisation], where instead of fighting they spend their time
writing mandates." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 111] Obviously the importance of militia self-management was as lost on him as it was on Lenin
and Trotsky -- under Marx's state would its defenders just be cannon-fodder, obeying their government and officers without the ability to help determine the revolution they were
fighting for? Apparently so. Moreover, Marx quotes Bakunin's support for "responsible and recallable delegates, vested with their imperative mandates" without commenting on the
fact Bakunin predicts those features of the Paris Commune Marx praised in his Civil War in France by a number of years. Looks like Morrow is not the first Marxist to appropriate
anarchist ideas without crediting their source.

As can be seen, Morrow's suggestion on how to push the Spanish Revolution forward just repeats the ideas of anarchism. Any one familiar with anarchist theory would not be surprised
by this as they would know that we have seen a free federation of workplace and communal associations as the basis of a revolution and, therefore, a free society since the time of
Proudhon. Thus Morrow's "Trotskyist" vision of a federation of workers' council actually reproduces basic anarchist ideas, ideas which pre-date Lenin's support for soviets as the
basis of his "workers' state" by over half a century (we will indicate the fundamental difference between the anarchist vision and the Trotskyist in due course).

As an aside, these quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin make a mockery of Lenin's assertion that anarchists do not analysis "what to put in the place of what has been destroyed [i.e.
the old state machine] and how" [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 362] Anarchists have always suggested a clear answer to what we should "replace" the state with -- namely free
federations of working class organisations created in the struggle against capital and state. To state otherwise is to either be ignorant of anarchist theory or seek to deceive.

Some anarchists like Bakunin and the anarcho-syndicalists and collectivists saw these organisations being based primarily on libertarian labour unions complemented by whatever
organisations were created in the process of revolution ("The future society must be nothing else than the universalisation of the organisation that the International has formed
for itself" -- "The Sonvillier Circular" echoing Bakunin, quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 61] Others like Kropotkin and anarcho-communists saw it as
a free federation of organisations created by the process of revolution itself. While anarchists did not present a blueprint of what would occur after the revolution (and rightly
so) they did provide a general outline in terms of a decentralised, free federation of self-managed workers' associations as well as linking these future forms of working class
self-government with the forms generated in the current class struggle in the here and now.

Similarly, Lenin's other assertion that anarchists do not study "the concrete lessons of previous proletarian revolutions" [Ibid.] is equally baseless, as any one reading, say,
Kropotkin's work would soon realise (for example, The Great French Revolution, Modern Science and Anarchism or his pamphlet "Revolutionary Government"). Starting with Bakunin,
anarchists analysed the experiences of the Paris Commune and the class struggle itself to generalise political conclusions from them (for example, the vision of a free society as a
federation of workers' associations is clearly a product of analysing the class struggle and looking at the failures of the Commune). Given that Lenin states in the same work that
"anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as their 'own'" [p. 350] suggests that anarchists had studied the Paris Commune and he was aware of that fact. Of course, Lenin
states that we had "failed to give . . . a true solution" to its lessons -- given that the solution anarchists proposed was a federation of workers councils to smash the state and
defend the revolution his comments seem strange as this, according to The State and Revolution, is the "Marxist" solution as well (in fact, as we will soon see, Lenin played lip
service to this and instead saw the solution as government by his party rather than the masses as a whole).

Thus, Morrow's vision of what was required for a successful revolution parallels that of anarchism. We shall now discuss where and how they differ.

The essential difference between the anarchist and Trotskyist vision of workers' councils as the basis of a revolution is what role these councils should play. For anarchists,
these federations of self-managed assemblies is the actual framework of the revolution (and the free society it is trying to create). As Murray Bookchin puts it:

    "There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be achieved by means of self-administration
    . . . Assembly and community must arise from within the revolutionary process itself; indeed, the revolutionary process must be the formation of assembly and community, and
    with it, the destruction of power. Assembly and community must become 'fighting words,' not distinct panaceas. They must be created as modes of struggle against the existing
    society, not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions. . . The factory committees . . . must be managed directly by workers' assemblies in the factories. . . neighbourhood
    committees, councils and boards must be rooted completely in the neighbourhood assemble. They must be answerable at every point to the assembly, they and their work must be
    under continual review by the assembly; and finally, their members must be subject to immediate recall by the assembly. The specific gravity of society, in short, must be
    shifted to its base -- the armed people in permanent assembly." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 167-9]

Thus the anarchist social revolution sees workers' councils as organs of working class self-management, the means by which they control their own lives and create a new society
based on their needs, visions, dreams and hopes. They are not seen as means by which others, the revolutionary party, seized power on behalf of the people as Trotskyists do.

Harsh words? No, as can be seen from Morrow who is quite clear on the role of working class organisation -- it is seen purely as the means by which the party can take power. As he
argues, there is "no magic in the soviet form: it is merely the most accurate, most quickly reflecting and responsively changing form of political representation of the masses. . .
It would provide the arena in which the revolutionary party can win the support of the working class." [ Op. Cit., p. 136]

He states that initially the "reformist majority in the executive committee would decline the assumption of state power. But the workers could still find in the soviets their
natural organs of struggle until the genuinely revolutionary elements in the various parties banded together to win a revolutionary majority in the congress and establish a
workers' state." In other words, the "workers' state, the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . can only be brought into existence by the direct, political intervention of the
masses, through the factory and village councils (soviets) at that point where a majority in the soviets is wielded by the workers' party or parties which are determined to
overthrow the bourgeois state. Such was the basic theoretical contribution of Lenin." [Op. Cit., p. 100 and p. 113]

From an anarchist perspective, this indicates well the fundamental difference between anarchism and Trotskyism. For anarchists, the existence of an "executive committee" indicates
that the workers' council do not, in fact, have power in society -- rather it is the minority in the executive committee who have been delegated power. Rather than govern
themselves and society directly, workers are turned into voters implementing the decisions their leaders have made on their behalf. If revolutionary bodies like workers' councils
did create a "workers' state" (as Morrow recommends) then their power would be transferred and centralised into the hands of a so-called "revolutionary" government. In this, Morrow
follows his guru Trotsky:

    "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the masses and their
    heterogeneity. In the revolutionary vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom. Without the confidence of the class
    in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.

    "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]

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." [Ibid.] He mocks the anarchist idea that a socialist revolution should be based on the self-management of workers within their own autonomous
class organisations:

    "Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves
    out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat." [Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]

In this he followed comments made when he was in power. In 1920 he argued that "[w]e have more than once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorships of the Soviets
the dictatorship of the party. Yet it can be said with complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible only be means of the dictatorship of the party. It
is thanks to the . . . party . . . [that] the Soviets . . . [became] transformed from shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In this
'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the working class these 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] Any claims that Trotsky's infamously authoritarian (indeed dictatorial) politics were a temporary
aberration caused by the necessities of the Russian Civil War are refuted by these quotes -- 17 years later he was still arguing the same point.

He had the same vision of party dictatorship being the basis of a revolution in 1924. Commenting on the Bolshevik Party conference of April 1917, he states that "whole of . . .
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. Moreover, he 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." He continued by noting 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]

We are not denying that Trotskyists do aim to gain a majority within working class conferences. That is clear. Anarchists also seek to gain the support of the mass of the
population. It is what they do next that counts. Trotskyists seek to create a government above these organisations and dominate the executive committees that requires. Thus power
in society shifts to the top, to the leaders of the centralised party in charge of the centralised state. The workers' become mere electors rather than actual controllers of the
revolution. Anarchists, in contrast, seek to dissolve power back into the hands of society and empower the individual by giving them a direct say in the revolution through their
workplace, community and militia assemblies and their councils and conferences.

Trotskyists, therefore, advocate workers councils because they see them as the means the vanguard party can take power. Rather than seeing socialism or "workers' power" as a
society in which everyone would directly control their own affairs, Trotskyists see it in terms of working class people delegating their power into the hands of a government.
Needless to say, the two things are not identical and, in practice, the government soon turns from being the people's servant into its master.

It is clear that Morrow always discusses workers councils in terms of the strategy and program of the party, not the value that workers councils have as organs of direct workers
control of society. He clearly advocates workers councils because he sees them as the best way for the vanguard party to rally workers around its leadership and organise the
seizure of state power. At no time does he see then as means by which working class people can govern themselves directly -- quite the reverse.

The danger of such an approach is obvious. The government will soon become isolated from the mass of the population and, due to the centralised nature of the state, difficult to
hold accountable. Moreover, given the dominant role of the party in the new state and the perspective that it is the workers' vanguard, it becomes increasingly likely that it will
place its power before that of those it claims to represent.

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. When
the workers and sailors of the Kronstadt navy base rebelled in 1921, in solidarity with striking workers in Petrograd, they were demanding freedom of the press for socialist and
anarchist groups and new elections to the soviets. But the reaction of the Bolshevik leadership was to crush the Kronstadt dissent in blood. Trotsky's attitude towards workers
democracy was clearly expressed at the time:

    "They [the dissent Bolsheviks of the Workers' Opposition] have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert
    its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the worker's democracy!"

He spoke of the "revolutionary historic birthright of the Party" and that it "is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working
class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy." [quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 78]

This perspective naturally follows from Trotsky's vanguardist politics. For Leninists, the party is the bearer of "socialist consciousness" and, according to Lenin in What is to
be Done?, workers, by their own efforts, can only achieve a "trade union" consciousness and, indeed, "there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the masses
of workers in the process of their struggle" and so "the only choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology" (the later being developed not by workers but by the "bourgeois
intelligentsia"). [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 82 and p. 74] To weaken or question the party means to weaken or question the socialist nature of the revolution and so weaken the
"dictatorship of the proletariat." Thus we have the paradoxical situation of the "proletarian dictatorship" repressing workers, eliminating democracy and maintaining itself against
the "passing moods" of the workers (which means rejecting what democracy is all about). Hence Lenin's comment at a conference of the Cheka (his political police) in 1920:

    "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]

Significantly, of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical information was available on 1 November 1920, peasants and workers constituted the largest groups, at 39% and 34%
respectively. Similarly, of the 40 913 prisoners held in December 1921 (of whom 44% had been committed by the Cheka) nearly 84% were illiterate or minimally educated, clearly,
therefore, either peasants of workers. [George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, p. 178] Needless to say, Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in The State
and Revolution (a failure shared by Morrow and later Trotskyists).

It is hard to combine these facts and Lenin's and Trotsky's comments with the claim that the "workers' state" is an instrument of class rule -- after all, Lenin is acknowledging
that coercion will be exercised against members of the working class as well. The question of course arises -- who decides what a "wavering" or "unstable" element is? Given their
comments on the role of the party and the need for the party to assume power, it will mean in practice whoever rejects the government's decisions (for example, strikers, local
soviets who reject central decrees and instructions, workers who vote for anarchists or parties other than the Bolshevik party in elections to soviets, unions and so on, socialists
and anarchists, etc.). Given a hierarchical system, Lenin's comment is simply a justification for state repression of its enemies (including elements within or even the whole
working class).

It could be argued, however, that workers could use the soviets to recall the government. However, this fails for two reasons (we will ignore the question of the interests of the
bureaucratic machine which will inevitably surround a centralised body -- see section H.3.9 for further discussion).

Firstly, the Leninist state will be highly centralised, with power flowing from the top-down. This means that in order to revoke the government, all the soviets in all parts of
the country must, at the same time, recall their delegates and organise a national congress of soviets (which, we stress, is not in permanent session). The local soviets are bound
to carry out the commands of the central government (to quote the Soviet constitution of 1918 -- they are to "carry out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet
power"). Any independence on their part would be considered "wavering" or an expression of "unstable" natures and so subject to "revolutionary coercion". In a highly centralised
system, the means of accountability is reduced to the usual bourgeois level -- vote in the general election every few years (which, in any case, can be annulled by the government
to ensure that the soviets do not go back into the "mud" via the "passing moods" caused by the "insufficient cultural level of the masses"). In other words, the soviet form may
be the "most accurate, most quickly reflecting and responsively changing form of political representation of the masses" (to use Morrow's words) but only before they become
transformed into state organs.

Secondly, "revolutionary coercion" against "wavering" elements does not happen in isolation. It will encourage critical workers to keep quiet in case they, too, are deemed
"unstable" and become subject to "revolutionary" coercion. As a government policy it can have no other effect than deterring democracy.

Thus Trotskyist politics provides the rationale for eliminating even the limited role of soviets for electing representatives they hold in that ideology.

Morrow argues that "[o]ne must never forget . . . that soviets do not begin as organs of state power" rather they start as "organs defending the workers' daily interests"
and include "powerful strike committees." [Op. Cit., p. 136] That is true, initially workers' councils are expressions of working class power and are organs of working class
self-management and self-activity. They are subject to direct control from below and unite from the bottom up. However, once they are turned into "organs of state power" their role
(to re-quote the Soviet constitution of 1918) becomes that of "carry[ing] out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet power." Soviet power is replaced by party
power and they become a shell of their former selves -- essentially rubber-stamps for the decisions of the party central committee.

Ironically, Morrow quotes the main theoretician of the Spanish Socialist Party as stating "the organ of the proletarian dictatorship will be the Socialist Party" and states that
they "were saying precisely what the anarchist leaders had been accusing both communists and revolutionary socialists of meaning by the proletarian dictatorship." [Op. Cit., p. 99
and p. 100] This is hardly surprising, as this was what the likes of Lenin and Trotsky had been arguing. As well as the quotes we have provided above, we may add Trotsky's comment
that the "fundamental instrument of proletarian revolution is the party." [Lessons of October] And the resolution of the Second World Congress of the Communist International which
stated that "[e]very class struggle is a political struggle. The goal of this struggle . . . is the conquest of political power. Political power cannot be seized, organised and
operated except through a political party." [cited by Duncan Hallas, The Comintern, p. 35] In addition, we may quote Lenin's opinion 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 . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by political parties. . . "

And:

    "To go so far in this matter 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, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]

As Lenin and Trotsky constantly argued, proletarian dictatorship was impossible without the political party of the workers (whatever its name). Indeed, to even discuss any
difference between the dictatorship of the class and that of the party just indicated a confused mind. Hence Morrow's comments are incredulous, particularly as he himself stresses
that the soviet form is useful purely as a means of gaining support for the revolutionary party which would take over the executive of the workers' councils. He clearly is aware
that the party is the essential organ of proletarian rule from a Leninist perspective -- without the dictatorship of the party, Trotsky argues, the soviets fall back into the mud.
Trotsky, indeed, stressed this need for the dictatorship of the party rather than of the proletariat in a letter written in 1937:

    "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an objective necessity imposed upon us by the social
    realities -- the class struggle, the 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." [Trotsky, Writings 1936-37, pp. 513-4]

The net result of Bolshevik politics in Russia was that Lenin and Trotsky undermined the self-management of working class bodies during the Russian Revolution and before the Civil
War started in May 1918. We have already chronicled Trotsky's elimination of democracy and equality in the Red Army (see section 11). A similar fate befell the factory committees
(see section 17) and soviet democracy (as noted above). The logic of Bolshevism is such that at no point did Lenin describe the suppression of soviet democracy and workers' control
as a defeat (indeed, as far as workers' control went Lenin quickly moved to a position favouring one-man management). We discuss the Russian Revolution in more detail in the
appendix on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?" and so will not do so here.

All in all, while Morrow's rhetoric on the nature of the social revolution may sound anarchist, there are important differences between the two visions. While Trotskyists support
workers' councils on purely instrumentalist grounds as the best means of gaining support for their party's assumption of governmental power, anarchists see workers' councils as
the means by which people can revolutionise society and themselves by practising self-management in all aspects of their lives. The difference is important and its ramifications
signify why the Russian Revolution became the "dictatorship over the proletariat" Bakunin predicted. His words still ring true:

    "[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]

It was for this reason that he argued the anarchists do "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." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 237] The history of the Russian Revolution proved
him right. Hence anarchist support for popular assemblies and federations of workers' councils as the framework of the social revolution rather than as a means to elect a
"revolutionary" government.

One last point. We must point out that Morrow's follows Lenin in favouring executive committees associated with workers' councils. In this he actually ignores Marx's (and Lenin's,
in State and Revolution) comments that the Paris Commune was "to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time." [Selected Writings, p. 287]
The existence of executive committees was coded into the Soviet Union's 1918 Constitution. This suggests two things. Firstly, Leninism and Trotskyism differ on fundamental points
with Marx and so the claim that Leninism equals Marxism is difficult to support (the existence of libertarian Marxists like Anton Pannekoek and other council communists also
disprove such claims). Secondly, it indicates that Lenin's claims in State and Revolution were ignored once the Bolsheviks took power so indicating that use of that work to prove
the democratic nature of Bolshevism is flawed.

Moreover, Marx's support of the fusion of executive and legislative powers is not as revolutionary as some imagine. For anarchists, as Bookchin argues, "[i]n 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]

13. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist "workers' state"?

Morrow asserts two "fundamental" tenets of "anarchism" in his book [Op. Cit., pp. 101-2]. Unfortunately for him, his claims are somewhat at odds with reality. Anarchism, as we will
prove in section 14, does not hold one of the positions Morrow states it does. The first "tenet" of anarchism he fails to discuss at all and so the reader cannot understand why
anarchists think as they do. We discuss this "tenet" here.

The first tenet is that anarchism "has consistently refused to recognise the distinction between a bourgeois and a workers' state. Even in the days of Lenin and Trotsky, anarchism
denounced the Soviet Union as an exploiters' regime." [ Op. Cit., p. 101] It is due to this, he argues, the CNT co-operated with the bourgeois state:

    "The false anarchist teachings on the nature of the state . . . should logically have led them [the CNT] to refuse governmental participation in any event . . . the anarchists
    were in the intolerable position of objecting to the necessary administrative co-ordination and centralisation of the work they had already begun. Their anti-statism 'as such'
    had to be thrown off. What did remain, to wreck disaster in the end, was their failure to recognise the distinction between a workers' and a bourgeois state." [Op. Cit., p.
    101]

Needless to say, Morrow does not bother to explain why anarchists consider the bourgeois and workers' state to be similar. If he did then perhaps his readers would agree with the
anarchists on this matter. However, before discussing that we have to address a misrepresentation of Morrow's. Rather than the expression of anarchist politics, the actions of the
CNT were in direct opposition to them. As we showed in the section 12, anarchists see a social revolution in terms of creating federations of workers associations (i.e. workers'
councils). It was this vision that had created the structure of the CNT (as Bakunin had argued, "the organisation of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers of
Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society which is to replace the old one. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself"
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]).

Thus, the social revolution would see the workers' organisation (be they labour unions or spontaneously created organs) "tak[ing] the revolution into its own hands . . . an
earnest international organisation of workers' associations . . . [would] replac[e] this departing political world of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 110] This is
precisely what the CNT did not do -- rather it decided against following anarchist theory and instead decided to co-operate with other parties and unions in the "Central Committee
of Anti-Fascist Militias" (at least temporarily until the CNT stronghold in Saragossa was liberated by CNT militias). In effect, it created a UGT-like "Alliance" with other
anti-fascist parties and unions and rejected its pre-war policy of "unity from below." The CNT and FAI leadership decided not to talk of libertarian communism but only of the fight
against fascism. A greater mistake they could not have made.

An anarchist approach in the aftermath of the fascist uprising would have meant replacing the Generalitat with a federal assembly of delegates from workplace and local community
assemblies (a Defence Council, to use a CNT expression). Only popular assemblies (not political parties) would be represented (parties would have an influence only in proportion to
their influence in the basic assemblies). All the CNT would have had do was to call a Regional Congress of unions and invite the UGT, independent unions and unorganised workplaces
to send delegates to create the framework of this system. This, we must stress, was not done. We will discuss why in section 20 and so will refrain from doing so here. However,
because the CNT in effect "postponed" the political aspects of the social revolution (namely, to quote Kropotkin, to "smash the State and replace it with the Federation [of
Communes]" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259]) the natural result would be exactly as Morrow explains:

    "But isn't it a far cry from the failure to create the organs to overthrow the bourgeoisie, to the acceptance of the role of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie? Not
    at all . . . Without developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it was inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental collaboration with the
    bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., pp. 88-9]

As Kropotkin predicted, "there can be no half-way house: either the Commune is to be absolutely free to endow itself with whatever institutions it wishes and introduce all reforms
and revolutions it may deem necessary, or else it will remain . . . a mere subsidiary of the State, chained in its every movement." [ Op. Cit., p. 259] Without an alternative means
of co-ordinating the struggle, the CNT would, as Morrow argued, have little choice but to collaborate with the state. However, rather than being a product of anarchist theory, as
Morrow states, this came about by ignoring that theory (see section 20).

This can be seen from the false alternative used to justify the CNT's and FAI's actions -- namely, "either libertarian communism, which means anarchist dictatorship, or democracy,
which means collaboration." The creation of libertarian communism is done from below by those subject to capitalist and statist hierarchy overthrowing those with power over them
by smashing the state machine and replacing it with self-managed organisations as well as expropriating capital and placing it under workers' self-management. As Murray Bookchin
argues:

    "Underlying all [the] errors [of the CNT], at least in theoretical terms, was the CNT-FAI's absurd notion that if it assumed power in the areas it controlled, it was
    establishing a 'State.' As long as 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. . . That the 'taking of power' by an armed people in militias, libertarian unions and federations, peasant
    communes and industrial collectives could be viewed as an 'anarchist dictatorship' reveals the incredible confusion that filled the minds of the 'influential militants.'"
    ["Looking Back at Spain," pp. 53-96, The Radical Papers, pp. 86-7]

This perspective explains why anarchists do not see any fundamental difference between a so-called "workers' state" and the existing state. For anarchists, the state is based
fundamentally on hierarchical power -- the delegation of power into the hands of a few, of a government, of an "executive" committee. Unlike Lenin, who stressed the "bodies of
armed men" aspect of the state, anarchists consider the real question as one of who will tell these "bodies of armed men" what to do. Will it be the people as a whole (as expressed
through their self-managed organisations) or will be it a government (perhaps elected by representative organisations)?

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]

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]

The question is, therefore, one of who "seizes power" -- will it be the mass of the population or will it be a party claiming to represent the mass of the population. The
difference is vital -- and anyone who confuses the issue (like Lenin) does so either out of stupidity or vested interests.

If it is the mass of people then they have to express themselves and their power (i.e. the power to manage their own affairs). That requires that individuals -- no matter where
they are, be it in the workplace, community or on the front line -- are part of self-managed organisations. Only by self-management in functional groups can working class people be
said to controlling their own lives and determining their own fate. Such a system of popular assemblies and their means of defence would not be a state in the anarchist sense of
the word.

As we argued in section 12, the Trotskyist vision of revolution, while seeming in some ways similar to that of anarchists, differ on this question. For Trotskyists, the party takes
power, not the mass of the population directly. Only if you view "proletarian" seizure of power in terms of electing a political party to government could you see the elimination
of functional democracy in the armed forces and the workplaces as no threat to working class power. Given Trotsky's actual elimination of democracy in the Red Army and Navy plus
his comments on one-man management (and their justifications -- see sections 11 and 17) it is clear that Trotskyists consider the workers' state in terms of party government, not
self-management, not functional direct democracy.

Yes, the Trotskyists do claim that it is the workers, via their soviets, who will elect the government and hold it accountable but such a position fails to realise that a social
revolution can only be created from below, by the direct action of the mass of the population. By delegating power into the hands of a few, the revolution is distorted. The
initiative and power no longer rests in the hands of the mass of the population and so they can no longer take part in the constructive work of the revolution and so it will not
reflect their interests and needs. As power flows from the top-down, bureaucratic distortions are inevitable.

Moreover, the government will inevitably clash with its subjects and Trotskyist theory provides the justification for the government imposing its wishes and negating workers'
democracy (see section 12 for evidence for this claim). Moreover, in the centralised state desired by Trotskyists democratic accountability will inevitably suffer as power flows to
the top:

    "The power of the local soviets passed into the hands of the [National] Executive Committee, the power of the Executive Committee passed into the hands of the Council of
    People's Commissars, and finally, the power of the Council of People's Commissars passed into the hands of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party." [Murray Bookchin,
    Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 152]

Little wonder, then, these CNT aphorisms:

    "power corrupts both those who exercise it and those over whom it is exercised; those who think they can conquer the State in order to destroy it are unaware that the State
    overcomes all its conquerors. . . dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship without the proletariat and against them." [Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 456]

That, in a nut shell, why anarchists consider the workers' state as no real change from the bourgeois state. Rather than creating a system in which working class people directly
manage their own affairs, the workers' state, like any other state, involves the delegation of that power into the hands of a few. Given that state institutions generate specific
social relations, specific relations of authority (namely those order giver and order taker) they cannot help becoming separated from society, becoming a new class based on the
state's bureaucratic machine. Any state structure (particularly a highly centralised one, as desired by Leninists) has a certain independence from society and so serves the
interests of those within the State institutions rather than the people as a whole.

Perhaps a Leninist will point to The State and Revolution as evidence that Lenin desired a state based round the soviets -- workers' council -- and so our comments are unjustified.
However, as Marx said, judge people by what they do, not what they say. The first act of the October Revolution was to form an executive power over the soviets (although, of
course, in theory accountable to their national congress). In The State and Revolution Lenin praised Marx's comment that the Paris Commune was both administrative and executive.
The "workers' state" created by Lenin did not follow that model (as Russian anarcho-syndicalists argued in August 1918, "the Soviet of People's Commissars [i]s an organ which does
not stem from the soviet structure but only interferes with its work" [The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p. 118]).

Thus the Bolshevik state was not based around soviet self-management nor the fusion of executive and administrative in their hands but rather the use of the soviets to elect a
government (a separate executive) which had the real power. The issue is quite simple -- either "All power to the Soviets" means just that or it means "All power to the government
elected by the Soviets". The two are not the same as the first, for the obvious reason that in the second the soviets become simply ratification machines for the government and not
organs in which the working masses can run their own affairs. We must also point out that the other promises made in Lenin's book went the same way as his support for the combining
administration and executive tasks in the Paris Commune -- and, we stress, all before the Civil War started in May 1918 (the usual Trotskyist defence of such betrayals is blame the
Civil War which is hard to do as it had not started yet).

So it is unsurprising that Morrow does not explain why anarchists reject the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- to do so would be to show that Trotskyism is not the revolutionary
movement for workers' liberty it likes to claim it is. Moreover, it would involve giving an objective account of anarchist theory and admitting that the CNT did not follow its
teachings.

14. What is wrong with Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism?

According to Morrow the "second fundamental tenet in anarchist teaching" is, apparently, the following:

    "Since Bakunin, the anarchists had accused Marxists of over-estimating the importance of state power, and had characterised this as merely the reflection of the petty-bourgeois
    intellectuals' pre-occupation with lucrative administrative posts. Anarchism calls upon workers to turn their backs on the state and seek control of the factories as the real
    source of power. The ultimate sources of power (property relations) being secured, the state power will collapse, never to be replaced."

He then sums up by stating the Spanish anarchists "thus failed to understand that it was only the collapse of state power . . . which had enabled them to seize the factories." [Op.
Cit., p. 102]

It would be interesting to discover in what work of Bakunin, or any anarchist, such a position could be found. Morrow gives us no references to help us in our quest -- hardly
surprising as no anarchist (Spanish or otherwise) ever argued this point before July 1936. However, in September 1936, we discover the CNT arguing that the "withering away of
the State is socialism's ultimate objective. Facts have demonstrated that in practice it is achieved by liquidation of the bourgeois State, brought to a state of asphyxiation by
economic expropriation." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 261] This, we must note, was the same month the CNT decided to join the Catalan Government! So much for the state having
withered away.

However, will soon be made clear, such comments were a revision of anarchist theory brought about by the apparent victory of the CNT on July 19th, 1936 (just as other revisions
occurred to justify CNT participation in the state). In other words, Morrow's "second fundamental tenet" does not exist in anarchist theory. To prove this, we will quote Bakunin
and a few other famous anarchists as well as giving an overview of some of the insurrections organised by the CNT before 1936. We start with Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta.

Given that Bakunin thought that it was the "power of the State" which "sustains the privileged classes" against the "legitimate indignation of the masses of the people" it is
hard to know what Morrow is talking about. [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 196] Given this perspective, it naturally follows that to abolish capitalism, to allow the
seizure of factories by the workers, the state had to be abolished (or "destroyed"). Equally clear is that the "natural and necessary consequence of this destruction will be . . .
[among others, the] dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and priesthood. . . confiscation of all productive capital and means of production on behalf of workers'
associations, who are to put them to use . . . the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . will constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings p.
253 and p. 170]

Thus, the state has to be abolished in order to ensure that workers' can take over the means of production, so abolishing capitalism. This is the direct opposite of Morrow's claim
that "[s]ince Bakunin" anarchism had "call[ed] upon the workers to turn their backs to the state and seek control of the factories as the real source of power." While control of
the economy by workers is an important, indeed a key, aspect of a social revolution it is not a sufficient one for anarchists. It must be combined with the destruction of the state
(as Bakunin argued, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . today unless it was simultaneously a political and a social revolution" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]). As the
power of the state "sustains" the capitalists it clearly follows that the capitalist only has his property because the state protects his property claims -- without the state,
workers' would seize the means of production. Which means, contra Morrow, Bakunin was aware that in order for workers' to take over their workplaces the state had to be destroyed
as it was by means of the state that capitalist property rights are enforced.

And, just to stress the obvious, you cannot "turn your backs on the state" while dissolving the state bureaucracy, the army, police and so on. This is clear for Bakunin. He argued
that "[l]iberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward." And the nature of this
workers' organisation? Workers' councils -- the "proletariat . . . must enter the International [Workers' Association] en masse, form[ing] factory, artisan, and agrarian sections,
and unite them into local federations." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179 and p. 49]

Similarly, we discover Kropotkin arguing that "expropriation" would occur at the same time as "the capitalists' power to resist [had] been smashed" and that "the authorities" will
be "overthrown." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 232 and p. 233] He also recognised the need for self-defence, arguing that the revolution must "withstand both the attempts to
form a government that would seek to strangle it and any onslaughts which may emanate from without." [Op. Cit., p. 232] He argued the Commune "must smash the State and replace it
with the Federation and it will act accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 259] You cannot do all this by "turning your backs" on the state. To smash the state you need to face it and fight
it -- there is no other way.

Elsewhere he argued that the commune of the future would base itself on "the principles of anarchist communism" and "entirely abolish . . . property, government, and the state."
They will "proclaim and establish their independence by direct socialist revolutionary action, abolishing private property" when "governments are swept away by the people . . . the
insurgent people will not wait until some new government decrees, in its marvellous wisdom, a few economic reforms." Rather, they "will take possession on the spot and establish
their rights by utilising it without delay. They will organise themselves in the workshops to continue the work, but what they will produce will be what is wanted by the masses,
not what gives the highest profit to employers. . . they will organise themselves to turn to immediate use the wealth stored up in the towns; they will take possession of it as
if it had never been stolen from them by the middle class." [The Commune of Paris] Note that Kropotkin explicitly states that only after "governments are swept away" would the
"insurgent people . . . organise themselves in the workshops."

As Malatesta noted, the anarchist principles formulated in 1872 at the Congress of St Imier (under the influence of Bakunin, obviously) stated that "[d] estruction of all political
power is the first duty of the proletariat" who must "establish solidarity in revolutionary action outside the framework of bourgeois politics." He adds, "[n]eedless to say, for
the delegates of St. Imier as for us and for all anarchists, the abolition of political power is not possible without the simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." [Life and
Ideas, pp. 157-8]

Malatesta himself always stressed that revolution required "the insurrectionary act which sweeps away the material obstacles, the armed forces of the government." He argued that
"[o]nce the government has been overthrown . . . it will be the task of the people . . . to provide for the satisfaction of immediate needs and to prepare for the future by
destroying privileges and harmful institutions." [Op. Cit., p. 163 and p. 161] In other words, the revolution needs to smash the state and at the same time abolish capitalism by
expropriation by the workers.

Thus anarchism is clear on that you need to destroy the state in order to expropriate capital. Morrow's assertions on this are clearly false. Rather than urging "workers to turn
their backs on the state and seek control of the factories as the real source of power" anarchism calls upon workers to "overthrow," "smash," "sweep away," "destroy", "dissolve"
the state and its bureaucratic machinery via an "insurrectionary act" and expropriate capital at the same time -- in other words, a popular uprising probably combined with a
general strike ("an excellent means for starting the social revolution," in Malatesta's words, but not in itself enough to made "armed insurrection unnecessary" [Errico Malatesta,
The Anarchist Reader, pp. 224-5]).

That, in itself, indicates that Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism does not, in fact, actually exist. In addition, if we look at the history of the CNT during the 1930s we
discover that the union organised numerous insurrections which did not, in fact, involve workers "turning their backs on the state" but rather attacking the state. For example, in
the spontaneous revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers "seized town halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared communismo liberatario." In Tarassa,
the same year, the workers again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by street fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by Anarchist action groups . . . on
Barcelona's military barracks . . . Serious fighting occurred in working-class barrios and the outlying areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in Tarassa, Sardanola-Ripollet,
Lerida, in several pueblos in Valencia province, and in Andalusia." In Casas Viejas, as we discussed in section 1, the CNT members surrounded and attacked the barracks of the
Civil Guard. In December 1933, the workers "reared barricades, attacked public buildings, and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many villages declared libertarian communism."
[Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

Moreover, "[w]herever possible . . . insurrections had carried out industrial and agrarian take-overs and established committees for workers' and peasant's control, libertarian
systems of logistics and distribution -- in short, a miniature society 'organised on the lines set down by Kropotkin.'" [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 239]

Now, does all that really sound like workers turning their backs on the state and only seizing control of their factories?

Perhaps it will be argued that Morrow is referring to after the insurrection (although he clearly is not). What about the defence of the revolution? Anarchists have always been
clear on this too -- the revolution would be defended by the people in arms. We have discussed this issue above (in sections 1 and 8 in particular) so we do not need to discuss it
in much detail here. We will just provide another quote by Bakunin (although written in 1865, Bakunin made the same points over and over again until his death in 1876):

    "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]

This was essentially the position agreed by the CNT in May 1936:

    "The armed people will be the best guarantee against all attempts to restore the destroyed regime by interior or exterior forces . . . Each Commune should have its arms and
    elements of defence." [quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 64]

Like the CNT with its "Defence Committees" the defence of the revolution would rest with the commune and its federation. Thus Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism does not
exist. We have never urged the ignoring of the state nor the idea that seizing economic power will eliminate political power by itself. Nor is anarchism against the defence of a
revolution. The position of the CNT in May 1936 was identical to that of Bakunin in 1865. The question is, of course, how do you organise a revolution and its defence -- is it by
the whole people or is it by a party representing that people. Anarchists argue for the former, Trotskyists the latter. Needless to say, a state structure (i.e. a centralised,
hierarchical structure based on the delegation of power) is required only when a revolution is seen as rule by a party -- little wonder anarchists reject the concept of a "workers'
state" as a contradiction in terms.

The question of July 1936 however rears its head. If anarchism does stand for insurrection, workers councils and so on, then why did the CNT ignore the state? Surely that suggests
anarchism is, as Morrow claims, flawed? No, it does not -- as we argue in some detail in section 20 this confuses mistakes by anarchists with errors in anarchist theory. The
CNT-FAI did not pursue anarchist theory and so July 1936 does not invalidate anarchism. As Bakunin argued, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . unless it was simultaneously a
political and a social revolution." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141] The revolution of July 1936 was a social revolution (it expropriated capital and revolutionised social
relationships across society) but it was not a political revolution -- in other words, it did not destroy the state. The CNT refused to do this because of the danger of fascism and
fear of isolation (see section 20 ). Little wonder the social revolution was defeated -- the CNT did not apply basic anarchist theory. To dismiss anarchist ideas because they were
not applied seems somewhat strange.

To finish this section we must indicate that Morrow's statement concerning anarchists "turning our backs" to the state and concentrating on property actually contradicts both
Engels and Lenin.

As Lenin notes in The State and Revolution, "Marx agreed with Proudhon on the necessity of 'smashing' the present state machine. . . [there is] similarity between Marxism and
anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) . . . on this point" and that anarchists advocate "the destruction of the state machine." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 310 and p. 358] You can
hardly smash the state or destroy the state machine by "turning your back" to it. Similarly, Engels argued (although distorting his thought somewhat) that Bakunin saw "the state
as the main evil to be abolished . . . [and] maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state . . .
[Hence] it is above all the state which must be done away with . . . organise, and when ALL workers are won over . . . abolish the state and replace it with the organisation of
the International." [The Marx-Engels Reader , pp. 728-9] You cannot "abolish" and "replace" the state by ignoring it ("turning your back to it"). We must also stress that Engels
comments disprove Lenin's assertion that anarchists "have absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will put in its [the states] place." [Op. Cit., p. 358] We have always
been clear, namely a federation of workers' associations (this was the organisation of the First International). In other, more modern, words, a system of workers' councils -- a
position Marxists only embraced six decades later when Lenin advocated them as the basis of his "workers' state."

Thus Morrow's comments against anarchism are in contradiction to usual Marxist claims against anarchism (namely, that we seek to smash the state but do not understand that the
workers' state is necessary to abolish capitalism). Indeed, Engels attributed the opposite idea to Bakunin that Morrow implies anarchists think with regards to property -- namely
the idea that the capitalist has his property because of the state. Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism not only does not exist in anarchist theory, it does not even exist in
the Marxist critique of that theory! It is impressive enough to assign a false doctrine to your enemies, it takes real ability to make a claim which contradicts your own theory's
assertions!

15. Did Spanish Anarchism aim for the creation of "collectives" before the revolution?

The formation of the worker-managed enterprises called "collectives" in the Spanish revolution of 1936 has sometimes led people (particularly Marxists) to misconceptions about
anarcho-syndicalist and communist-anarchist theory. These comments by a Marxist-Leninist are typical:

    "Spanish anarchists believed that a system of autonomous collectives, with the weakest possible connections between them, was the alternative to capitalism and also to the
    Marxist view of society running the entire economy as one whole."

And:

    "The anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there, and not by the working class as a whole."
    [Joseph Green, "The Black Autonomy Collective and the Spanish Civil War", Communist Voice no. 10, Vol. 2, no. 5, Oct. 1, 1996]

This assertion is sometimes voiced by Libertarian Marxists of the council communist tendency (who should know better):

    "At the time of the Civil War, a popular idea amongst the Spanish working class and peasants was that each factory, area of land, etc., should be owned collectively by its
    workers, and that these 'collectives' should be linked with each other on a 'federal' basis - that is, without any superior central authority.

    "This basic idea had been propagated by anarchists in Spain for more than 50 years. When the Civil War began, peasants and working class people in those parts of the country
    which had not immediately fallen under fascist control seized the opportunity to turn anarchist ideal into reality." [ "Anarchism and the Spanish 'Revolution'", Subversion no.
    18]

Trotskyist Felix Morrow also presents a similar analysis when he states that the POUM "recorded the tendency of CNT unions to treat collectivised property as their own. It never
attacked the anarcho-syndicalist theories which created the tendency." [Op. Cit., p. 104]

However, the truth of the matter is somewhat different.

Firstly, as will soon become clear, CNT policy and anarchist theory was not in favour of workers' owning their individual workplaces. Instead both argued for socialisation of the
means of life by a system of federations of workers' assemblies. Individual workplaces would be managed by their workers but they would not exist in isolation or independently of
the others -- they would be members of various federations (minimally an industrial one and one which united all workplaces regardless of industry in a geographical area). These
would facilitate co-ordination and co-operation between self-managed workplaces. The workplace would, indeed, be autonomous but such autonomy did not negate the need for federal
organs of co-ordination nor did federation negate that autonomy (as we will discuss later in section 18, autonomy means the ability to make agreements with others and so joining a
federation is an expression of autonomy and not necessarily its abandonment, it depends on the nature of the federation).

Secondly, rather than being the product of "more than 50 years" of anarchist propaganda or of "anarcho-syndicalist theories", the "collectives" instituted during the Civil War were
seen by the CNT as merely a temporary stop-gap. They had not been advocated in the CNT's pre-Civil War program, but came into existence precisely because the CNT was unable to
carry out its libertarian communist program, which would have required setting up workers congresses and federal councils to establish co-ordination and aid the planning of common
activities between the self-managed workplaces. In other words, the idea of self-managed workplaces was seen as one step in a process of socialisation, the basic building block of
a federal structure of workers' councils. They were not seen as an end in themselves no matter how important they were as the base of a socialised economy.

Thus the CNT had never proposed that factories or other facilities would be owned by the people who happened to work there. The CNT's program called for the construction of
"libertarian communism." This was the CNT's agreed goal, recognising it must be freely created from below. In addition, the Spanish Anarchists argued for "free experimentation,
free show of initiative and suggestions, as well as the freedom of organisation," recognising that "[i]n each locality the degree of [libertarian] communism, collectivism or
mutualism will depend on conditions prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom our banner, cannot deny it in economy." [D. A. de Santillan, After the Revolution, p. 97] In
other words, the CNT recognised that libertarian communism would not be created overnight and different areas will develop at different speeds and in different directions depending
on the material circumstances they faced and what their population desired.

However, libertarian communism was the CNTs declared goal. This meant that the CNT aimed for a situation where the economy as a whole would be socialised and not an mutualist
economy consisting independent co-operatives owned and controlled by their workers (with the producers operating totally independently of each other on the basis of market
exchange). Instead, workers would manage their workplace directly, but would not own it -- rather ownership would rest with society as a whole but the day-to-day management of the
means of production would be delegated to those who did the actual work. Councils of workers' delegates, mandated by and accountable to workplace assemblies, would be created to
co-ordinate activity at all levels of the economy.

A few quotes will be needed to show that this was, in fact, the position of the Spanish Anarchists. According to Issac Puente, the "national federations will hold as common
property all the roads, railways, buildings, equipment, machinery and workshops." The village commune "will federate with its counterparts in other localities and with the national
industrial federations." [Libertarian Communism, p. 29 and p. 26] In D. A. de Santillan's vision, libertarian communism would see workers' councils overseeing 18 industrial
sectors. There would also be "councils of the economy" for local, regional and national levels (ultimately, international as well). [Op. Cit., pp. 50-1 and pp. 80-7] These councils
would be "constitute[d] by delegations or through assemblies" and "receives [their] orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions" of their appropriate
"assemblies." [Op. Cit., p. 83 and p. 86]

The CNT's national conference in Saragossa during May 1936 stressed this vision. Its resolution declared that the revolution would abolish "private property, the State, the
principle of authority, and . . . classes." It argued that "the economic plan of organisation, throughout national production, will adjust to the strictest principles of social
economy, directly administered by the producers through their various organs of production, designated in general assemblies of the various organisations, and always controlled by
them." In urban areas, "the workshop or factory council" would make "pacts with other labour centres" via "Councils of Statistics and Production" which are the "organ of relations
of Union to Union (association of producers)", in other words, workers' councils. These would "federate among themselves, forming a network of constant and close relations among
all the producers of the Iberian Confederation." In rural areas, "the producers of the Commune" would create a "Council of Cultivation" which would "establish the same network of
relations as the Workshop, Factory Councils and those of Production and Statistics, complementing the free federation represented by the Commune."

The resolution argues that "[b]oth the Associations of industrial producers and Associations of agricultural producers will federate nationally" and "Communes will federate on
a county and regional basis . . . Together these Communes will constitute an Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes." Being anarchists, the CNT stressed that
"[n]one of these organs will have executive or bureaucratic character" and their members "will carry out their mission as producers, meeting after the work day to discuss questions
of details which don't require the decision of the communal assemblies." The assemblies themselves "will meet as often as needed by the interests of the Commune. . . When problems
are dealt with which affect a country or province, it must be the Federations which deliberate, and in the meetings and assemblies all Communities will be represented and the
delegates will bring points of view previously agreed upon" by the Commune assembly. [quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 59, p. 60 and
p. 62]

Joan Ferrer, a bookkeeper who was the secretary of the CNT commercial workers union in Barcelona, explained this vision:

    "It was our idea in the CNT that everything should start from the worker, not -- as with the Communists -- that everything should be run by the state. To this end we wanted to
    set up industrial federations -- textiles, metal-working, department stores, etc. -- which would be represented on an overall Economics Council which would direct the economy.
    Everything, including economic planning, would thus remain in the hands of the workers." [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 180]

However, social revolution is a dynamic process and things rarely develop exactly as predicted or hoped in pre-revolutionary times. The "collectives" in Spain are an example of
this. Although the regional union conferences in Catalonia had put off overthrowing the government in July of 1936, workers began taking over the management of industries as soon
as the street-fighting had died down. The initiative for this did not come from the higher bodies -- the regional and national committees -- but from the rank-and-file activists in
the local unions. In some cases this happened because the top management of the enterprise had fled and it was necessary for the workers to take over if production was to continue.
But in many cases the local union militants decided to take advantage of the situation to end wage labour by creating self-managed workplaces.

As to be expected of a real movement, mistakes were made by those involved and the development of the movement reflected the real problems the workers faced and their general
level of consciousness and what they wanted. This is natural and to denounce such developments in favour of ideal solutions means to misunderstand the dynamic of a revolutionary
situation. In the words of Malatesta:

    "To organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would be necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of production, of exchange and
    consumption; and all this could not be achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages
    could be gained and were able to act for themselves." [Life and Ideas, p. 36]

This was the situation in revolutionary Spain. Moreover, the situation was complicated by the continued existence of the bourgeois state. As Gaston Leval, in his justly famous
study of the collectives, states "it was not . . . true socialisation, but . . . a self-management straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have occurred
had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 227-8] Leval in fact terms it
"a form of workers neo-capitalism" but such a description is inaccurate (and unfortunate) simply because wage labour had been abolished and so it was not a form of capitalism --
rather it was a form of mutualism, of workers' co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour on the market.

However, Leval basic argument was correct -- due to the fact the political aspect of the revolution (the abolition of the state) had been "postponed" until after the defeat of
fascism, the economic aspects of the revolution would also remain incomplete. The unions that had seized workplaces were confronted with a dilemma. They had control of their
individual workplaces, but the original libertarian plan for economic co-ordination was precluded by the continued existence of the State. It was in this context of a partial
revolution, under attack by the counter-revolution, that the idea of "collectives" was first put forward to solve some of the problems facing the workers and their self-managed
workplaces. Unfortunately, this very "solution" caused problems of its own. For example, Gaston Leval indicates that the collectivisation decree of October 1936 "legalising
collectivisation", "distorted everything right from the start" [Op. Cit., p. 227] and did not allow the collectives to develop beyond a mutualist condition into full libertarian
communism. It basically legalised the existing situation while hindering its development towards libertarian communism by undermining union control.

This dilemma of self-managed individual workplaces and lack of federations to co-ordinate them was debated at a CNT union plenary in September of 1936. The idea of converting the
worker-managed workplaces into co-operatives, operating in a market economy, had never been advocated by the Spanish anarchists before the Civil War, but was now seen by some as a
temporary stop-gap that would solve the immediate question of what to do with the workplaces that had been seized by the workers. It was at this meeting that the term "collective"
was first adopted to describe this solution. This concept of "collectivisation" was suggested by Joan Fabregas, a Catalan nationalist of middle class origin who had joined the CNT
after July of 1936. As one CNT militant recalled:

    "Up to that moment, I had never heard of collectivisation as a solution for industry -- the department stores were being run by the union. What the new system meant was that
    each collectivised firm would retain its individual character, but with the ultimate objective of federating all enterprises within the same industry." [quoted by Ronald
    Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 212]

However, a number of unions went beyond "collectivisation" and took over all the facilities in their industries, eliminating competition between separate firms. The many small
barber and beauty shops in Barcelona were shut down and replaced with large neighbourhood haircutting centres, run through the assemblies of the CNT barbers' union. The CNT bakers
union did something similar. The CNT Wood Industry Union shut down the many small cabinet-making shops, where conditions were often dangerous and unhealthy. They were replaced with
two large factories, which included new facilities for the benefit of the workforce, such as a large swimming pool.

The union ran the entire industry, from the felling of timber in the Val d'Aran to the furniture showrooms in Barcelona. The railway, maritime shipping and water, gas and electric
industry unions also pursued this strategy of industrial unification, as did the textile union in the industrial town of Badalona, outside Barcelona. This was considered to be a
step in the direction of eventual socialisation.

At the Catalan union plenary of September, 1936, "the bigger, more powerful unions, like the woodworkers, the transport workers, the public entertainment union, all of which had
already socialised [i.e. unified their industries under union management], wanted to extend their solution to the rest of industry. The smaller, weaker unions wanted to form
co-operatives. . ." [Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 212]

The collectives came out of this conflict and discussion as a sort of "middle ground" -- however, it should be stressed that it did not stop many unions from ignoring the Catalan's
governments' attempt to legalise (and so control) the collectives (the so-called "collectivisation" decree) as far as they could. As Albert Perez-Baro, a Catalan Civil Servant
noted, "the CNT . . . pursued its own, unilateral objectives which were different. Syndical collectivisation or syndicalised collectives, I would call those objectives; that's to
say, collectives run by their respective unions . . . The CNT's policy was thus not the same as that pursued by the decree." [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., pp. 212-3] Indeed, Abad de
Santillan stated later that he "was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature . . . When I became [economics] councillor [of the Generalitat for the CNT], I had no
intention of taking into account of carrying out the decree; I intended to allow our great people to carry on the task as they saw fit, according to their own aspiration." [quoted,
Op. Cit., p. 212f]

Therefore, when Leninist Joseph Green argues the initial collectivisation of workplaces "was the masses starting to take things into their own hands, and they showed that they
could continue production in their workplaces . . . The taking over of the individual workplaces and communities is one step in a revolutionary process. But there is yet more that
must be done -- the workplaces and communities must be integrated into an overall economy" he is just showing his ignorance. The CNT, despite Green's assertions to the contrary,
were well aware that the initial collectivisations were just one step in the revolution and were acting appropriately. It takes some gall (or extreme ignorance) to claim that CNT
theory, policy and actions were, in fact, the exact opposite of what they were. Similarly, when he argues "[h]ow did the anarchists relate the various workplace collectives to each
other in Barcelona? . . . they made use of a patchwork system including a Central Labour Bank, an Economic Council, credit . . ." he strangely fails to mention the socialisation
attempts made by many CNT industrial unions during the revolution, attempts which reflected pre-war CNT policy. But such facts would get in the way of a political diatribe and so
are ignored. [Green, Op. Cit.]

Green continues his inaccurate diatribe by arguing that:

    "The problem is that, saddled with their false theory, they could not understand the real nature of the economic steps taken in the collectives, and thus they could not deal
    with the economic relations that arose among the collectives." [Op. Cit.]

However, the only thing false about this is the false assertions concerning anarchist theory. As is crystal clear from our comments above, the Spanish anarchists (like all
anarchists) were well aware of the need for economic relations between collectives (self-managed workplaces) before the revolution and acted to create them during it. These were
the industrial federations and federations of rural communities/collectives predicted in anarchist and CNT theory and actually created, in part at least, during the revolution
itself.

Thus Green's "critique" of anarchism is, in fact, exactly what anarchist theory actually argues and what the Spanish anarchists themselves argued and tried to implement in all
industries. Of course, there are fundamental differences between the anarchist vision of socialisation and the Leninist vision of Nationalisation but this does not mean that
anarchism is blind to the necessity of integrating workplaces and communities into a coherent system of federations of workers' councils (as proven above). However, such federation
has two sources -- it is either imposed from above or agreed to from below. Anarchists choose the former as the latter negates any claim that a revolution is a popular, mass
movement from below (and, incidentally, the Leninist claim that the "workers' state" is simply a tool of the workers to defeat capitalist oppression).

The actual process in Spain towards industrial federations and so socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved -- as would be expected in a true social
revolution. For example, the department stores were collectivised and an attempt to federate the stores failed. The works councils opposed it, considering the enterprises as their
own and were unwilling to join a federation -- the general assemblies of the collectives agreed. Joan Ferrer, the secretary of the CNT commercial union, considered it natural as
"[o]nly a few months before, the traditional relationship between employer and worker had been overthrown. Now the workers were being asked to make a new leap -- to the concept of
collective ownership. It was asking a lot to expect the latter to happen overnight." [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 220]

However, before Leninists like Green rush in and assert that this proves that "anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each factory as owned simply by the
workers that laboured there" we should point out two things. Firstly, it was the "ordinary anarchists" who were trying to organise socialisation (i.e. CNT members and militants).
Secondly, the Russian Revolution also saw workers taking over their workplaces and treating them as their own property. Leninists like Green would have a fit if we took these
examples to "prove" that Leninism "led to the ordinary Bolshevik worker considering each factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there" (which was what the Mensheviks
did argue in 1917 when Martov "blamed the Bolsheviks for creating the local, particularistic attitudes prevailing among the masses." [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 72]). In
other words, such events are a natural part of the process of a revolution and are to be expected regardless of the dominant theory in that revolution.

To summarise.

The Spanish revolution does confirm anarchist theory and in no way contradicts it. While many of the aspects of the collectives were in accord with pre-war CNT policy and anarchist
theory, other aspects of them were in contradiction to them. This was seen by the militants of the CNT and FAI who worked to transform these spontaneously created organs of
economic self-management into parts of a socialised economy as required for libertarian communism. Such a transformation flowed from below and was not imposed from above, as would
be expected in a libertarian social revolution.

As can be seen, the standard Marxist account of the collectives and its relationship to anarchist theory and CNT policy is simply wrong.

16. How does the development of the collectives indicate the differences between Bolshevism and anarchism?

As argued in the last section, the collectives formed during the Spanish Revolution reflected certain aspects of anarchist theory but not others. They were a compromise solution
brought upon by the development of the revolution and did not, as such, reflect CNT or anarchist theory or vision bar being self-managed by their workers. The militants of the
CNT and FAI tried to convince their members to federate together and truly socialise the economy, with various degrees of success. A similar process occurred during the Russian
Revolution of 1917. There workers created factory committees which tried to introduce workers' self-management of production. The differences in outcome in these two experiences
and the actions of the Bolsheviks and anarchists indicate well the fundamental differences between the two philosophies. In this section we discuss the contrasting solutions
pursued by the CNT and the Bolsheviks in their respective revolutions.

The simple fact is that revolutions are complex and dynamic processes which involve many contradictory developments. The question is how do you push them forward -- either from
below or from above. Both the Spanish and the Russian revolution were marked by "localism" -- when the workers in a factory consider it their own property and ignore wider issues
and organisation.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks "solved" the problem of localism by eliminating workers' self-management in favour of one-man management appointed from above. Attempts by the workers
and factory committees themselves to combat localism were stopped by the Bolshevik dominated trade unions which "prevented the convocation of a planned All-Russian Congress of
Factory Committees" in November 1917 when "called upon" by the Bolsheviks "to render a special serve to the nascent Soviet State and to discipline the Factory Committees." [I.
Deutscher, quoted by Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 19] Instead, the Bolsheviks built from the top-down their system of "unified administration" based on
converting the Tsarist system of central bodies which governed and regulated certain industries during the war. [Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 36] The CNT, in comparison, tried to solve
the problem of localism by a process of discussion and debate from below. Both were aware of the fact the revolution was progressing in ways different from their desired goal but
their solution reflected their different politics -- libertarian in the case of the CNT, authoritarian in the case of Bolshevism.

Therefore, the actual economic aspects of the Spanish revolution reflected the various degrees of political development in each workplace and industry. Some industries socialised
according to the CNT's pre-war vision of libertarian communism, others remained at the level of self-managed workplaces in spite of the theories of the union and anarchists. This
was the case with other aspects of the collectives. As Vernon Richards points out, "[i]n some factories . . . the profits or income were shared out among the workers . . . As a
result, wages fluctuated in different factories and even within the same industry . . . But fortunately . . . the injustice of this form of collectivisation was recognised and
combated by the CNT syndicates from the beginning." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, pp. 106-7]

Thus the collectives, rather than expressing the economic vision of communist-anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism, came into existence precisely because the CNT was unable to
carry out its libertarian communist program, which would have required setting up workers congresses and co-ordinating councils to establish common ownership and society wide
self-management. To assert that the collectives were an exact reflection of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist theory is, therefore, incorrect. Rather, they reflected certain aspects
of that theory (such as workers' self-management in the workplace) while others (industrial federations to co-ordinate economic activity, for example) were only partially meet.
This, we must stress, is to be expected as a revolution is a process and not an event. As Kropotkin argued:

    "It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps five years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution in the property system and in social organisation."
    [Words of a Rebel, p. 72]

Thus the divergence of the actual revolution from the program of the CNT was to be expected and so did not represent a failure or a feature of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist
theory as Morrow and other Marxists assert. Rather, it expresses the nature of a social revolution, a movement from below which, by its very nature, reflects real needs and
problems and subject to change via discussion and debate. Bakunin's comments stress this aspect of the revolution:

    "I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised from the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation, confirming in all respects to our
    dreams. But I am convinced that what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands times better and more just than any existing organisation. Moreover, this . . .
    organisation, being on the one hand open to revolutionary propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the intervention of the State . . . will develop and perfect
    itself through free experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect in our times.

    "With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development of each commune will take its point of
    departure the actual condition of its civilisation . . ." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 207]

To impose an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution -- the actions and decisions (including what others may consider mistakes) of a free people are infinitely more productive
and useful than the decisions and decrees of the best central committee. Moreover, a centralised system by necessity is an imposed system (as it excludes by its very nature the
participation of the mass of the people in determining their own fate). As Bakunin argued, "Collectivism could be imposed only on slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then
be the negation of humanity. In a free community, collectivism can come about only through the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous
movement from below." [Op. Cit., p. 200] Thus socialisation must proceed from below, reflecting the real development and desires of those involved. To "speed-up" the process via
centralisation can only result in replacing socialisation with nationalisation and the elimination of workers' self-management with hierarchical management. Workers' again would be
reduced to the level of order-takers, with control over their workplaces resting not in their hands but in those of the state.

Lenin argued that "Communism requires and presupposes the greatest possible centralisation of large-scale production throughout the country. The all-Russian centre, therefore,
should definitely be given the right of direct control over all the enterprises of the given branch of industry. The regional centres define their functions depending on local
conditions of life, etc., in accordance with the general production directions and decisions of the centre." He continued by explicitly arguing that "[t]o deprive the all-Russia
centre of the right to direct control over all the enterprises of the given industry . . . would be regional anarcho-syndicalism, and not communism." [Marx, Engels and Lenin,
Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 292]

We expect that Morrow would subscribe to this "solution" to the problems of a social revolution generates. However, such a system has its own problems.

First is the basic fallacy that the centre will not start to view the whole economy as its property (and being centralised, such a body would be difficult to effectively control).
Indeed, Stalin's power was derived from the state bureaucracy which ran the economy in its own interests. Not that it suddenly arose with Stalin. It was a feature of the Soviet
system from the start. Samuel Farber, for example, notes that, "in practice, [the] hypercentralisation [pursued by the Bolsheviks from early 1918 onwards] turned into infighting
and scrambles for control among competing bureaucracies" and he points to the "not untypical example of a small condensed milk plant with few than 15 workers that became the object
of a drawn-out competition among six organisations including the Supreme Council of National Economy, the Council of People's Commissars of the Northern Region, the Vologda Council
of People's Commissars, and the Petrograd Food Commissariat." [Op. Cit., p. 73] In other words, centralised bodies are not immune to viewing resources as their own property (and
compared to an individual workplace, the state's power to enforce its viewpoint against the rest of society is considerably stronger).

Secondly, to eliminate the dangers of workers' self-management generating "propertarian" notions, the workers' have to have their control over their workplace reduced, if not
eliminated. This, by necessity, generates bourgeois social relationships and, equally, appointment of managers from above (which the Bolsheviks did embrace). Indeed, by 1920 Lenin
was boasting that in 1918 he had "pointed out the necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the pursue of carrying out the Soviet idea" and even
claimed that at that stage "there were no disputes in connection with the question" of one-man management. [quoted by Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 65] While the first claim is true (Lenin
argued for one-man management appointed from above before the start of the Civil War in May 1918) the latter one is not true (excluding anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, there
were also the dissent Left-Communists in the Bolshevik party itself).

Thirdly, a centralised body effectively excludes the mass participation of the mass of workers -- power rests in the hands of a few people which, by its nature, generates
bureaucratic rule. This can be seen from the example of Lenin's Russia. The central bodies the Bolsheviks created had little knowledge of the local situation and often gave orders
that contradicted each other or had little bearing to reality, so encouraging factories to ignore the centre. In other words the government's attempts to centralise actually led to
localism (as well as economic mismanagement)! Perhaps this was what Green means when he argues for a "new centralism" which would be "compatible with and requiring the initiative
of the workers at the base" [Green Op. Cit.]-- that is, the initiative of the workers to ignore the central bodies and keep the economy going in spite of the "new centralism"?

The simple fact is, a socialist society must be created from below, by the working class itself. If the workers do not know how to create the necessary conditions for a socialist
organisation of labour, no one else can do it for them or compel them to do it. If the state is used to combat "localism" and such things then it obviously cannot be in the hands
of the workers' themselves. Socialism can only be created by workers' own actions and organisations otherwise it will not be set up at all -- something else will be, namely state
capitalism.

Thus, a close look at Lenin's "solution" indicates that Trotskyist claim that their state is the "tool of the majority in their fight against exploitation by the few" (to use
Joseph Green's words) is refuted by their assertion that this state will also bring the economy under centralised control and by the actions of the Bolsheviks themselves.

Why is this? Simply because if the mass of collectives are not interested in equality and mutual aid in society as a whole then how can the government actually be the "tool" of
the majority when it imposes such "mutual aid" and "equality" upon the collectives? In other words, the interests of the government replace those of the majority. After all, if
workers did favour mutual aid and equality then they would federate themselves to achieve it. (which the collectives were actually doing all across Spain, we must note). If they
do not do this then how can the "workers' state" be said to be simply their tool when it has to impose the appropriate economic structure upon them? The government is elected by
the whole people, so it will be claimed, and so must be their tool. This is obviously flawed -- "if," argued Malatesta, "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? And what will happen to the minorities which are still the most intelligent, most active and radical part
of a society?" [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 53]

What does all this mean? Simply that Trotskyists recognise, implicitly at least, that the workers' state is not, in fact, the simple tool of the workers. Rather, it is the means by
which "socialism" will be imposed upon the workers by the party. If workers do not practice mutual aid and federation in their day-to-day running of their lives, then how can the
state impose it if it is simply their tool? It suggests what is desired "by all of the working people as a whole" (nearly always a euphemism for the party in Trotskyist ideology)
is different that what they actually want (as expressed by their actions). In other words, a conflict exists between the workers' and the so-called "workers' state" -- in Russia,
the party imposed its concept of the interests of the working class, even against the working class itself.

Rather than indicate some kind of failure of anarchist theory, the experience of workers' self-management in both Spain and Russia indicate the authoritarian core of Trotskyist
ideology. If workers do not practice mutual aid or federation then a state claiming to represent them, to be simply their tool, cannot force them to do so without exposing itself
as being an alien body with power over the workers.

For these reasons Bakunin was correct to argue that anarchists have "no faith except in freedom. Both [Marxists and anarchists], equally supporters of science which is to destroy
superstition and replace belief, differ in the former wishing to impose it, and the latter striving to propagate it; so human groups, convinced of its truth, may organise and
federate spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, by their own momentum according to their real interests, but never according to any plan laid down in advance and imposed upon
the ignorant masses by some superior intellects." Anarchists, he continues, "think that there is much more practical and intellectual common sense in the instinctive aspirations
and in the real needs of the mass of the people than in the profound intelligence of all these doctors and teachers of mankind who, after so many fruitless attempts to make
humanity happy, still aspire to add their own efforts." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]

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 government. 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]

Thus the actual experience of the collectives and their development, rather than refuting anarchism, indicates well that it is the only real form of socialism. Attempts to
nationalise the means of production inevitably disempower workers and eliminate meaningful workers' self-management or control. It does not eliminate wage labour but rather changes
the name of the boss. Socialism can only be built from below. If it is not, as the Russian experience indicated, then state capitalism will be the inevitable outcome.

17. Why is Morrow's support for "proletarian methods of production" ironic?

Morrow states "[i]n the midst of civil war the factory committees are demonstrating the superiority of proletarian methods of production." [Op. Cit., p. 53] This is ironic as the
Bolsheviks in power fought against the factory committees and their attempts to introduce the kind of workers' self-management Morrow praises in Spain (see Maurice Brinton's The
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details). Moreover, rather than seeing workers' self-management as "proletarian methods of production" Lenin and Trotsky thought that how a
workplace was managed was irrelevant under socialism. Trotsky argued that "[i]t would 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 of the collective will of the workers [a euphemism for the Party -- M.B.] and not at all in the form in which individual economic organisations are administered." Indeed,
"I consider if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the
path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully." [quoted by Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 66 and pp. 66-7]

In other words, Trotsky both in theory and in practice opposed "proletarian methods of production" -- and if the regime introduced by Trotsky and Lenin in Russia was not based on
"proletarian methods of production" then what methods was it based on? One-man management with "the appointment of individuals, dictators with unlimited powers" by the government
and "the people unquestioningly obey[ing] the single will of the leaders of labour." [The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, p. 32 and p. 34] In other words, the usual
bourgeois methods of production with the workers' doing what the boss tells them. At no time did the Bolsheviks support the kind of workers' self-management introduced by the
anarchist influenced workers of Spain -- indeed they hindered it and replaced it with one-man management at the first opportunity (see Maurice Brinton's classic The Bolsheviks and
Workers' Control for details).

To point out the obvious, bourgeois methods of production means bourgeois social relations and relations of production. In other words, Morrow comments allows us to see that Lenin
and Trotsky's regime was not proletarian at the point of production. How ironic. And if it was not proletarian at the point of production (i.e. at the source of economic power) how
could it remain proletarian at the political level? Unsurprisingly, it did not -- party power soon replaced workers' power and the state bureaucracy replaced the party.

Yet again Morrow's book exposes the anti-revolutionary politics of Trotskyism by allowing anarchists to show the divergence between the rhetoric of that movement and what it did
when it was in power. Morrow, faced with a workers' movement influenced by anarchism, inadvertently indicates the poverty of Trotskyism when he praises the accomplishments of that
movement. The reality of Leninism in power was that it eliminated the very things Morrow praises -- such as "proletarian methods of production," democratic militias, workers'
councils and so on. Needless to say, the irony of Morrow's work is lost on most of the Trotskyists who read it.

18. Were the federations of collectives an "abandonment" of anarchist ideas?

From our discussion in section 15, it is clear that anarchism does not deny the need for co-ordination and joint activity, for federations of self-managed workplaces, industries
and rural collectives at all levels of society. Far from it. As proven in sections 12 and 15, such federations are a basic idea of anarchism. In anarchy co-ordination flows from
below and not imposed by a few from above. Unfortunately Marxists cannot tell the difference between solidarity from below and unity imposed from above. Morrow, for example, argues
that "the anarchist majority in the Council of Aragon led in practice to the abandonment of the anarchist theory of the autonomy of economic administration. The Council acted as a
centralising agency." [Op. Cit., pp. 205-6]

Of course it does nothing of the kind. Yes, anarchists are in favour of autonomy -- including the autonomy of economic administration. We are also in favour of federalism to
co-ordinate join activity and promote co-operation on a wide-scale (what Morrow would, inaccuracy, call "centralism" or "centralisation"). Rather than seeing such agreements
of joint activity as the "abandonment" of autonomy, we see it as an expression of that autonomy. It would be a strange form of "freedom" that suggested making arrangements and
agreements with others meant a restriction of your liberty. For example, no one would argue that to arrange to meet your friend at a certain place and time meant the elimination of
your autonomy even though it obviously reduces your "liberty" to be somewhere else at the same time.

Similarly, when an individual joins a group and takes part in its collective decisions and abides by their decisions, this does not represent the abandonment of their autonomy.
Rather, it is an expression of their freedom. If we took Morrow's comment seriously then anarchists would be against all forms of organisation and association as they would mean
the "abandonment of autonomy" (of course some Marxists do make that claim, but such a position indicates an essentially negative viewpoint of liberty, a position they normally
reject). In reality, of course, anarchists are aware that freedom is impossible outside of association. Within an association absolute "autonomy" cannot exist, but such "autonomy"
would restrict freedom 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.

Of course anarchists are aware that even the best association could turn into a bureaucracy that does restrict freedom. Any organisation could transform from being an expression
of liberty into a bureaucratic structure which restricts liberty because power concentrates at the top, into the hands of an elite. That is why we propose specific forms of
organisation, ones based on self-management, decentralisation and federalism which promote decision-making from the bottom-up and ensure that the organisation remains in the hands
of its members and its policies are agreements between them rather than ones imposed upon them. For this reason the basic building block of the federation is the autonomous group
assembly. It is this body which decides on its own issues and mandates delegates to reach agreements within the federal structure, leaving to itself the power to countermand
the agreements its delegates make. In this way autonomy is combined with co-ordination in an organisation that is structured to accurately reflect the needs and interests of
its members by leaving power in their hands. In the words of Murray Bookchin, anarchists "do not deny the need for co-ordination between groups, for discipline, for meticulous
planning, and for unity in action. But [we] believe that co-ordination, discipline, planning, and unity in action must be achieved voluntarily, by means of self-discipline
nourished by conviction and understanding, not by coercion and a mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders from above." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 215]

Therefore, anarchist support for "the autonomy of economic administration" does not imply the lack of co-operation and co-ordination, of joint agreements and federal structures
which may, to the uninformed like Morrow, seem to imply the "abandonment" of autonomy. As Kropotkin argued, the commune "cannot any longer acknowledge any superior: that, above
it, there cannot be anything, save the interests of the Federation, freely embraced by itself in concert with other Communes." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259] This vision
was stressed in the CNT's Saragossa resolution on Libertarian Communism made in May, 1936, which stated that the "the foundation of this administration will be the commune. These
communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at regional and national levels to achieve their general goals. The right to autonomy does not preclude the duty to implement
agreements regarding collective benefits." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, p. 106] Hence anarchists do not see making collective decisions and working
in a federation as an abandonment of autonomy or a violation of anarchist theory.

The reason for this is simple. To exercise your autonomy by joining self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the decisions you help make is not a denial of
that autonomy (unlike joining a hierarchical structure, we must stress). That is why anarchists have always stressed the importance of the nature of the associations people join
as well as their voluntary nature -- as Kropotkin argued, the "communes of the next revolution will not only break down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary
rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune itself . . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they will be anarchist outside it." [The Commune of
Paris] Moreover, within the federal structures anarchists envision, the actual day-to-day running of the association would be autonomous. There would be little or no need for the
federation to interfere with the mundane decisions a group has to make day in, day out. As the Saragossa resolution makes clear:

    "[The] commune . . . will undertake to adhere to whatever general norms may be agreed by majority vote after free debate . . . The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among
    themselves their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be represented at their
    reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune which is implicated will have its
    right to have its say . . . On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point is the individual,
    moving on through the commune, to the federation and right on up finally to the confederation." [quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit., pp. 106-7]

Since the Council of Aragon and the Federation of Collectives were based on a federal structure, regular meetings of mandated delegates and decision-making from the bottom up,
it would be wrong to call them a "centralising agency" or an "abandonment" of the principle of "autonomy." Rather, they were expressions of that autonomy based around a federal
and not centralised organisation. The autonomy of the collective, of its mass assembly, was not restricted by the federation nor did the federation interfere with the day to day
running of the collectives which made it up. The structure was a federation of autonomous collectives. The role of the Council was to co-ordinate the decisions of the federation
delegate meetings -- in other words, purely administrative implementation of collective agreements. To confuse this with centralisation is a mistake common to Marxists, but it is
still a confusion.

To summarise, what Morrow claims is an "abandonment" of anarchism is, in fact, an expression of anarchist ideas. The Council of Aragon and the Aragon Federation of Collectives were
following the CNT's vision of libertarian communism and not abandoning it, as Morrow claims. As anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchism would know.

19. Did the experience of the rural collectives refute anarchism?

Some Leninists attack the rural collectives on similar lines as they attack the urban ones (as being independent identities and without co-ordination -- see section 15 for
details). They argue that "anarchist theory" resulted in them considering themselves as being independent bodies and so they ignored wider social issues and organisation. This
meant that anarchist goals could not be achieved:

    "Let's evaluate the Spanish collectives according to one of the basic goals set by the anarchists themselves. This was to ensure equality among the toilers. They believed that
    the autonomous collectives would rapidly equalise conditions among themselves through 'mutual aid' and solidarity. This did not happen . . . conditions varied greatly among the
    Spanish collectives, with peasants at some agricultural collectives making three times that of peasants at other collectives." [Joseph Green, Op. Cit.]

Of course, Green fails to mention that in the presumably "centralised" system created by the Bolsheviks, the official rationing system had a differentiation of eight to one under
the class ration of May 1918. By 1921, this, apparently, had fallen to around four to one (which is still higher than the rural collectives) but, in fact, remained at eight to one
due to workers in selected defence-industry factories getting the naval ration which was approximately double that of the top civilian workers' ration. [Mary McAuley, Bread and
Justice: State and Society in Petrograd 1917-1922, pp. 292-3] This, we note, ignores the various privileges associated with state office and Communist Party membership which would
increase differentials even more (and such inequality extended into other fields, Lenin for example warned in 1921 against "giving non-Party workers a false sense of having some
increase in their rights" [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 325]). The various resolutions made by workers for equality in rations were ignored by the government (all this long
before, to use Green's words "their party degenerated into Stalinist revisionism").

So, if equality is important, then the decentralised rural collectives were far more successful in achieving it than the "centralised" system under Lenin (as to be expected, as the
rank-and-file were in control, not a few at the top).

Needless to the collectives could not unify history instantly. Some towns and workplaces started off on a more favourable position than others. Green quotes an academic (David
Miller) on this:

    "Such variations no doubt reflected historical inequalities of wealth, but at the same time the redistributive impact of the [anarchist] federation had clearly been slight."

Note that Green implicitly acknowledges that the collectives did form a federation. This makes a mockery of his claims that earlier claims that the anarchists "believed that the
village communities would enter the realm of a future liberated society if only they became autonomous collectives. They didn't see the collectives as only one step, and they
didn't see the need for the collectives to be integrated into a broader social control of all production." [Op. Cit.] As proven above, such assertions are either the product of
ignorance or a conscious lie. We quoted numerous Spanish anarchist documents that stated the exact opposite to Green's assertions. The Spanish anarchists were well aware of the
need for self-managed communities to federate. Indeed, the federation of collectives fits exactly pre-war CNT policy and anarchist theory (see sections 15 and 18 for details). To
re-quote a Spanish Anarchist pamphlet, the village commune "will federate with its counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial federations." [Issac Puente,
Libertarian Communism, p. 26] Thus what Green asserts the CNT and FAI did not see the need of, they in fact did see the need for and argued for their creation before the Civil War
and actually created during it! Green's comments indicate a certain amount of "doublethink" -- he maintains that the anarchists rejected federations while acknowledging they did
federate.

However, historical differences are the product of centuries and so it will take some time to overcome them, particularly when such changes are not imposed by a central government.
In addition, the collectives were not allowed to operate freely and were soon being hindered (if not physically attacked) by the state within a year. Green dismisses this
recognition of reality by arguing "one could argue that the collectives didn't have much time to develop, being in existence for only two and a half years at most, with the
anarchists only having one year of reasonably unhindered work, but one could certainly not argue that this experience confirmed anarchist theory." However, his argument is deeply
flawed for many reasons.

Firstly, we have to point out that Green quotes Miller who is using data from collectives in Castille. Green, however, was apparently discussing the collectives of Aragon and
the Levante and their respective federations (as was Miller). To state the obvious, it is hard to evaluate the activities of the Aragon or Levante federation using data from
collectives in the Castille federation. Moreover, in order to evaluate the redistributive activities of the federations you need to look at the differentials before and after the
federation was created. The data Miller uses does not do that and so the lack of success of the federation cannot be evaluated using Green's source. Thus Green uses data which is,
frankly, a joke to dismiss anarchism. This says a lot about the quality of his critique.

As far as the Castille federation goes, Robert Alexander notes "[a]nother feature of the work of regional federation was that of aiding the less fortunate collectives. Thus, within
a year, it spent 2 000 000 pesetas on providing chemical fertilisers and machines to poorer collectives, the money from this being provided by the sale of products of the wealthier
ones." [The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 438] He also quotes an article from an anarchist paper which states "there does not yet exist sufficient solidarity"
between rich and poor collectives and that notes "the difficulties which the State has put in the way of the development of the collectives." [Op. Cit., p. 439] Thus the CNT was
open about the difficulties it was experiencing in the collectives and the problems facing it.

Secondly, the collectives may have been in existence for about one year before the Stalinists attacked but their federations had not. The Castille federation was born in April,
1937 (the general secretary stated in July of that year "[w] e have fought terrible battles with the Communists" [Op. Cit., p. 446]). The Aragon federation was created in February
1937 (the Council of Aragon was created in October 1936) and the Communists under Lister attacked in August 1937. The Levante federation was formed a few weeks after the start
of the war and the attacks against them started in March 1937. The longest period of free development, therefore, was only seven months and not a year. Thus the federations of
collectives -- the means seen by anarchist theory to co-ordinate economic and social activities and promote equality -- existed for only a few months before they were physically
attacked by the state. Green expects miracles if he thinks history can be nullified in half a year.

Thirdly, anarchists do not think communist-anarchism, in all its many aspects, is possible overnight. Anarchists are well aware, to quote Kropotkin, the "revolution may assume a
variety of characters and differing degrees of intensity among different peoples." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 231] Also, as noted above, we are well aware that a revolution
is a process ("By revolution we do not mean just the insurrectionary act" [Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 156]) which will take some time to fully develop once the state has been
destroyed and capital expropriated. Green's assertion that the Spanish Revolution refutes anarchist theory is clearly a false one.

Green argues that a "vast organisational task faces the oppressed masses who are rising up to eliminate the old exploiting system, but anarchist theory just brushes aside this
problem -- co-ordination between collective would supposedly be easily accomplished by 'mutual aid' or 'voluntary co-operation' or, if absolutely need be, by the weakest possible
federation." [Op. Cit.] As can be seen from our discussion, such a claim is a false one. Anarchists are well aware of difficulties involved in a revolution. That is why we stress
that revolution must come from below, by the actions of the oppressed themselves -- it is far too complex to left to a few party leaders to decree the abolition of capitalism.
Moreover, as proven above anarchist theory and practice is well aware of the need for organisation, co-operation and co-ordination. We obviously do not "brush it aside." This can
be seen from Green's reference to "the weakest possible federation." This obviously is a cover just in case the reader is familiar with anarchist theory and history and knows that
anarchists support the federation of workers' associations and communes as the organisational framework of a revolution and of the free society.

This distorted vision of anarchism even extents to other aspects of the revolution. Green decides to attack the relative lack of international links the Spanish anarchist movement
had in 1936. He blames this on anarchist theory and states "again the localist anarchist outlook would go against such preparations. True, the anarchists had had their own
International association in the 1870s, separate from the original First International and the Marxists. It had flopped so badly that the anarchists never tried to resuscitate it
and seem to prefer to forget about it. Given anarchist localism, it is not surprising that this International doesn't even seem to be been missed by current-day anarchists." [Op.
Cit.]

Actually, the anarchist International came out of the First International and was made up of the libertarian wing of that association. Moreover, in 1936 the CNT was a member of the
International Workers' Association founded in 1922 in Berlin. The IWA was small, but this was due to state and Fascist repression. For example, the German FAUD, the Italian USI and
the FORA in Argentina had all been destroyed by fascist governments. However, those sections which did exist (such as the Swedish SAC and French CGTSR) did send aid to Spain and
spread CNT and FAI news and appeals (as did anarchist groups across the world). The IWA still exists today, with sections in over a dozen countries (including the CNT in Spain).
In addition, the International Anarchist Federation also exists, having done so for a number of decades, and also has sections in numerous countries. In other words, Green either
knows nothing about anarchist history and theory or he does and is lying.

He attacks the lack of CNT support for Moroccan independence during the war and states "[t]hey just didn't seem that concerned with the issue during the Civil War." Actually, many
anarchists did raise this important issue. Just one example, Camillo Berneri argued that "we must intensify our propaganda in favour of Morocco autonomy." ["What can we do?",
Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 51] Thus to state "the anarchists . . . didn't seem that concerned" is simply false. Many anarchists were and publicly argued for it.
Trapped as a minority force in the government, the CNT could not push through this position.

Green also points out that inequality existed between men and woman. He even quotes the anarchist women's organisation Mujeres Libres to prove his point. He then notes what the
Bolsheviks did to combat sexism, "[a]mong the methods of influence was mobilising the local population around social measures promulgated throughout the country. The banner of the
struggle was not autonomy, but class-wide effort." Two points, Mujeres Libres was a nation wide organisation which aimed to end sexism by collective action inside and outside the
anarchist movement by organising women to achieve their own liberation (see Martha Ackelsberg's , Free Women of Spain for more details). Thus its aims and mode of struggle was
"class-wide" -- as anyone familiar with that organisation and its activities would know. Secondly, why is equality between men and women important? Because inequality reduces the
freedom of women to control their own lives, in a word, it hinders they autonomy. Any campaign against sexism is based on the banner of autonomy -- that Green decides to forget
this suggests a lot about his politics.

Thus Green gets it wrong again and again. Such is the quality of most Leninist accounts of the Spanish revolution.

20. Does the experience of the Spanish Revolution indicate the failure of anarchism or the failure of anarchists?

Marxists usually point to the events in Catalonia after July 19th, 1936, as evidence that anarchism is a flawed theory. They bemoan the fact that, when given the chance, the
anarchists did not "seize power" and create a "dictatorship of the proletariat." To re-quote Trotsky:

    "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]

However, as we argued in section 12, the Trotskyist "definition" of "workers' power" and "proletarian dictatorship" is, in fact, party power, party dictatorship and party
sovereignty -- not working class self-management. Indeed, in a letter written in 1937, Trotsky clarified what he meant: "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]

Hence the usual Trotskyist lament concerning the CNT is that the anarchist leaders did not seize power themselves and create the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" (i.e.
the dictatorship of those claiming to represent the proletariat). A strange definition of "workers' power," we must admit. The "leaders" of the CNT and FAI quite rightly rejected
such a position -- unfortunately they also rejected the anarchist position at the same time, as we will see.

Trotsky states that the "leaders of the CNT . . . explained their open betrayal of the theory of anarchism by the pressure of 'exceptional circumstances' . . . Naturally, civil
war is not a peaceful and ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' Every serious revolutionary organisation, however, prepares precisely for 'exceptional circumstances.'"
["Stalinism and Bolshevism", Op. Cit., p. 16]

Trotsky is, for once, correct. We will ignore the obvious fact that his own (and every other Leninist) account of the degeneration of the Russian Revolution into Stalinism is
a variation of the "exceptional circumstances" excuse and turn to his essential point. In order to evaluate anarchism and the actions of the CNT we have to evaluate all the
revolutionary situations it found itself in, not just July, 1936 in Catalonia. This is something Trotsky and his followers seldom do -- for reasons that will become clear.

Obviously space considerations does not allow us to discuss every revolutionary situation anarchism faced. We will, therefore, concentrate on the Russian Revolution and the
activities of the CNT in Spain in the 1930s. These examples will indicate that rather than signifying the failure of anarchism, the actions of the CNT during the Civil War indicate
the failure of anarchists to apply anarchist theory and so signifies a betrayal of anarchism. In other words, that anarchism is a valid form of revolutionary politics.

If we look at the Russian Revolution, we see anarchist theory gain its most wide scale influence in those parts of the Ukraine protected by the Makhnovist army. The Makhnovists
fought against White (pro-Tsarist), Red and Ukrainian Nationalists in favour of a system of "free soviets" in which the "working people themselves must freely choose their own
soviets, which are to carry out the will and desires of the working people themselves. that is to say, administrative, not ruling councils." As for the economy, the "land, the
factories, the workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other wealth of the people must belong to the working people themselves, to those who work in them, that is to say, they
must be socialised." ["Some Makhnovist Proclamations", contained in Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 273]

To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up governments in the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of free soviets so that the working people
could govern themselves. Taking the example of Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population to participate in a
general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their own forces and their own organisations . .
. The first conference was followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed with animation
by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step . . . They formed a committee charged with organising
the railway network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of Aleksandrovsk began systematically to the problem of creating organs of self-management." [Op. Cit. , p.
149]

They also organised free agricultural communes which "[a]dmittedly . . . were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population . . . But what was most precious was
that these communes were formed by the poor peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free
communes." [Op. Cit., p. 87] Makhno played an important role in abolishing the holdings of the landed gentry. The local soviet and their district and regional congresses equalised
the use of the land between all sections of the peasant community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve the whole population in discussing the development of the revolution, the activities of the army and social policy.
They organised numerous conferences of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates to discuss political and social issues. They organised a regional congress of peasants and
workers when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the Makhnovists tried to convene the third regional congress of peasants, workers and insurgents in April 1919 and an
extraordinary congress of several regions in June 1919 (including Red Army soldiers) the Bolsheviks viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban them and declared their
organisers and delegates outside the law. For example, Trotsky issued order 1824 which stated the June 1919 congress was forbidden, that to inform the population of it was an act
of high treason and all delegates should be arrested immediately as were all the spreading the call. [Op. Cit., p. 98-105 and p. 122-31]

The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway and asking "[c]an there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves revolutionaries, which permit them to outlaw
a whole people who are more revolutionary than they are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests should the revolution defend: those of the Party or those of the people who set the
revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the workers and peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call
conferences on their own account, to discuss their affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129] These actions by the Bolsheviks should make the reader ponder if the elimination of
workers' democracy during the civil war can fully be explained by the objective conditions facing Lenin's government or whether Leninist ideology played an important role in it. As
Arshinov argues, "[w]hoever studies the Russian Revolution should learn it [Trotsky's order no. 1824] by heart." [ Op. Cit., p. 123] Obviously the Bolsheviks considered that soviet
system was threatened if soviet conferences were called and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was undermined if the proletariat took part in such events.

In addition, the Makhnovists "full applied the revolutionary principles of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, and of political association. In all cities and towns
occupied by the Makhnovists, they began by lifting all the prohibitions and repealing all the restrictions imposed on the press and on political organisations by one or another
power." Indeed, the "only restriction that the Makhnovists considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, the left Socialist-Revolutionaries and other statists was a prohibition
on the formation of those 'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a dictatorship over the people." [Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]

The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was fundamentally democratic (although, of course, the horrific nature of the civil war did result in a few deviations from the
ideal -- however, compared to the regime imposed on the Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were much more democratic movement). Arshinov proves a good summary:

    "The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and self-discipline.

    "Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.

    "The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in the army, were either
    elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.

    "Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved,
    they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander." [Op. Cit., p. 96]

Thus the Makhnovists indicate the validity of anarchist theory. They organised the self-defence of their region, refused to form of a "revolutionary" government and so the life
of the region, its social and revolutionary development followed the path of self-activity of the working people who did not allow any authorities to tell them what to do. They
respected freedom of association, speech, press and so on while actively encouraging workers' and peasants' self-management and self-organisation.

Moving to the Spanish movement, the various revolts and uprisings organised by the CNT and FAI that occurred before 1936 were marked by a similar revolutionary developments as
the Makhnovists. We discuss the actual events of the revolts in 1932 and 1933 in more detail in section 14 and so will not repeat ourselves here. However, all were marked by the
anarchist movement attacking town halls, army barracks and other sources of state authority and urging the troops to revolt and side with the masses (the anarchists paid a lot of
attention to this issue -- like the French syndicalists they produced anti-militarist propaganda arguing that soldiers should side with their class and refuse orders to fire on
strikers and to join popular revolts). The revolts also saw workers taking over their workplaces and the land, trying to abolish capitalism while trying to abolish the state. In
summary, they were insurrections which combined political goals (the abolition of the state) and social ones (expropriation of capital and the creation of self-managed workplaces
and communes).

The events in Asturias in October 1934 gives a more detailed account of nature of these insurrections. The anarchist role in this revolt has not been as widely known as it should
be and this is an ideal opportunity to discuss it. Combined with the other insurrections of the 1930s it clearly indicates that anarchism is a valid form of revolutionary theory.

While the CNT was the minority union in Asturias, it had a considerable influence of its own (the CNT had over 22 000 affiliates in the area and the UGT had 40 000). The CNT had
some miners in their union (the majority were in the UGT) but most of their membership was above ground, particularly in the towns of Aviles and Gijon. The regional federation of
the CNT had joined the Socialist Party dominated "Alianza Obrera," unlike the other regional federations of the CNT.

When the revolt started, the workers organised attacks on barracks, town halls and other sources of state authority (just as the CNT revolts of 1932 and 1933 had). Bookchin
indicates that "[s]tructurely, the insurrection was managed by hundreds of small revolutionary committees whose delegates were drawn from unions, parties, the FAI and even
anti-Stalinist Communist groups. Rarely, if at all, were there large councils (or 'soviets') composed of delegates from factories." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 249] This,
incidentally, indicates that Morrow's claims that in Asturias "the Workers' Alliances were most nearly like soviets, and had been functioning for a year under socialist and
Communist Left leadership" are false. [Op. Cit., p. 31] The claims that the Asturias uprising had established soviets was simply Communist and government propaganda.

In fact, the Socialists "generally functioned through tightly knit committees, commonly highly centralised and with strong bureaucratic proclivities. In Asturias, the UGT tried to
perpetuate this form wherever possible . . . But the mountainous terrain of Asturias made such committees difficult to co-ordinate, so that each one became an isolated miniature
central committee of its own, often retaining its traditional authoritarian character." The anarchists, on the other hand, "favoured looser structures, often quasi-councils
composed of factory workers and assemblies composed of peasants. The ambience of these fairly decentralised structures, their improvisatory character and libertarian spirit,
fostered an almost festive atmosphere in Anarchist-held areas." [Op. Cit., p. 249] Bookchin quotes an account which compares anarchist La Felguera with Marxist Sama, towns of equal
size and separated only by the Nalon river:

    "[The October Insurrection] triumphed immediately in the metallurgical and in the mining town. . . . Sama was organised along military lines. Dictatorship of the proletariat,
    red army, Central Committee, discipline. authority . . . La Felguera opted for communismo libertario: the people in arms, liberty to come and go, respect for the technicians
    of the Duro-Felguera metallurgical plant, public deliberations of all issues, abolition of money, the rational distribution of food and clothing. Enthusiasm and gaiety in La
    Felguera; the sullenness of the barracks in Sama. The bridges [of Sama] were held by a corp of guards complete with officers and all. No one could enter or leave Sama without
    a safe-conduct pass, or walk through the streets without passwords. All of this was ridiculously useless, because the government troops were far away and the Sama bourgeoisie
    disarmed and neutralised . . . The workers of Sama who did not adhere to the Marxist religion preferred to go to La Felguera, where at least they could breathe. Side by side
    there were two concepts of socialism: the authoritarian and the libertarian; on each bank of the Nalon, two populations of brothers began a new life: with dictatorship in Sama;
    with liberty in La Felguera." [Op. Cit., pp. 249-50]

Bookchin notes that "[i]n contrast to the severely delimited Marxist committee in Sama, La Felguera workers met in popular assembly, where they socialised the industrial city's
economy. The population was divided into wards, each of which elected delegates to supply and distribution committees. . . The La Felguera commune . . . proved to be so successful,
indeed so admirable, that surrounding communities invited the La Felguera Anarchists to advice them on reorganising their own social order. Rarely were comparable institutions
created by the Socialists and, where they did emerge, it was on the insistence of the rank-and-file workers." [Op. Cit., p. 250]

In other words, the Asturias uprising saw anarchists yet again applying their ideas with great success in a revolutionary situation. As Bookchin argues:

    "Almost alone, the Anarchists were to create viable revolutionary institutions structured around workers' control of industry and peasants' control of land. That these
    institutions were to be duplicated by Socialist workers and peasants was due in small measure to Anarchist example rather than Socialist precept. To the degree that the
    Asturian miners and industrial workers in various communities established direct control over the local economy and structured their committees along libertarian lines, these
    achievements were due to Anarchist precedents and long years of propaganda and education." [Op. Cit., p. 250-1]

Unlike their Socialist and Communist allies, the anarchists in Asturias took the Alianza's slogan "Unity, Proletarian Brothers" seriously. A key factor in the defeat of the
uprising (beyond its isolation due to socialist incompetence elsewhere -- see section 6) was the fact that "[s]o far as the Aviles and Gijon Anarchists were concerned . . . their
Socialist and Communist 'brothers' were to honour the slogan only in the breach. When Anarchist delegates from the seaports arrived in Oviedo on October 7, pleading for arms to
resist the imminent landings of government troops, their requests were totally ignored by Socialists and Communists who, as [historian Gabriel] Jackson notes, 'clearly mistrusted
them.' The Oviedo Committee was to pay a bitter price for its refusal. The next day, when Anarchist resistance, hampered by the pitiful supply of weapons, failed to prevent the
government from landing its troops, the way into Asturias lay open. The two seaports became the principal military bases for launching the savage repression of the Asturian
insurrection that occupied so much of October and claimed thousands of lives." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 248]

Therefore, to state as Morrow does that before July 1936, "anarchism had never been tested on a grand scale" and now "leading great masses, it was to have a definite test" is
simply wrong. [Op. Cit., p. 101] Anarchism had had numerous definite tests before involving "great masses," both in Spain and elsewhere. The revolts of the 1930s, the Makhnovists
in the Ukraine, the factory occupations in Italy in 1920 (see section A.5.5) and in numerous other revolutionary and near revolutionary situations anarchism had been tested and had
passed those tests. Defeat came about by the actions of the Marxists (in the case of Asturias and Italy) or by superior force (as in the 1932 and 1933 Spanish insurrections and
the Ukraine) not because of anarchist theory or activities. At no time did they collaborate with the bourgeois state or compromise their politics. By concentrating on July 1936,
Marxists effectively distort the history of anarchism -- a bit like arguing the actions of the Social Democratic Party in crushing the German discredits Marxism while ignoring the
actions and politics of the council communists during it or the Russian Revolution.

But the question remains, why did the CNT and FAI make such a mess (politically at least) of the Spanish Revolution of 1936? However, even this question is unfair as the example of
the Aragon Defence Council and Federation of Collectives indicate that anarchists did apply their ideas successfully in certain areas during that revolution.

Morrow is aware of that example, as he argues that the "Catalonian [i.e. CNT] militia marched into Aragon as an army of social liberation . . . Arriving in a village, the
militia committees sponsor the election of a village anti-fascist committee . . . [which] organises production on a new basis" and "[e]very village wrested from the fascists was
transformed into a forest of revolution." Its "municipal councils were elected directly by the communities. The Council of Aragon was at first largely anarchist." He notes that
"[l]ibertarian principles were attempted in the field of money and wages" yet he fails to mention the obvious application of libertarian principles in the field of politics with
the state abolished and replaced by a federation of workers' associations. To do so would be to invalidate his basic thesis against anarchism and so it goes unmentioned, hoping the
reader will not notice this confirmation of anarchist politics in practice. [Op. Cit., p. 53, p. 204 and p. 205]

So, from the experience of the Ukraine, the previous revolts in 1932, 1933 and 1934 and the example of the Council of Aragon it appears clear that rather than exposing anarchist
theory (as Marxists claim), the example of July 1936 in Catalonia is an aberration. Anarchist politics had been confirmed as a valid revolutionary theory many times before and,
indeed, shown themselves as the only one to ensure a free society. However, why did this aberration occur?

Most opponents of anarchism provide a rather (in)famous quote from FAI militant Juan Garcia Oliver, describing the crucial decision made in Catalonia in July of '36 to co-operate
with Companys' government to explain the failure of the CNT to "seize power":

    "The CNT and FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, eschewing revolutionary totalitarianism . . . by the anarchist and Confederal dictatorship." [quoted by Stuart
    Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p. 105]

In this statement Garcia Oliver describes the capitalist state as "democracy" and refers to the alternative of the directly democratic CNT unions taking power as "totalitarianism"
and "dictatorship." Marxists tend to think this statement tells us something about the CNT's original program in the period leading up to the crisis of July 1936. As proven above,
any such assertion would be false (see also section 8). In fact this statement was made in December of 1937, many months after Garcia Oliver and other influential CNT activists had
embarked upon collaboration in the government ministries and Republican army command. The quote is taken from a report by the CNT leadership, presented by Garcia Oliver and Mariano
Vazquez (CNT National Secretary in 1937) at the congress of the International Workers Association (IWA). The CNT was aware that government participation was in violation of the
principles of the IWA and the report was intended to provide a rationalisation. That report is an indication of just how far Garcia Oliver and other influential CNT radicals had
been corrupted by the experience of government collaboration.

Garcia Oliver's position in July of 1936 had been entirely different. He had been one of the militants to argue in favour of overthrowing the Companys government in Catalonia in
the crucial union assemblies of July 20-21. As Juan Gomez Casas argues:

    "The position supported by Juan Garcia Oliver [in July of '36] has been described as `anarchist dictatorship' Actually, though, Oliver was advocating application of the
    goals of the Saragossa Congress in Barcelona and Catalonia at a time in history when, in his opinion, libertarian communism was a real possibility. It would always signify
    dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea of [state] power, or at least make it impossible for them to pursue their politics aimed at seizure of power. There will
    always be pockets of opposition to new experiences and therefore resistance to joining 'the spontaneity of the popular masses.' In addition, the masses would have complete
    freedom of expression in the unions and in the economic organisations of the revolution as well as in their political organisations." [Anarchist Organisation: The History of
    the FAI, p. 188f]

Those libertarians who defended government participation in Spain argued that a non-hierarchical re-organisation of society in Catalonia in July of '36 could only have been imposed
by force, against the opposition of the parties and sectors of society that have a vested interest in existing inequalities. They argued that this would have been a "dictatorship,"
no better than the alternative of government collaboration.

If this argument were valid, then it logically means that anarchism itself would be impossible, for there will always be sectors of society -- bosses, judges, politicians, etc. --
who will oppose social re-organisation on a libertarian basis. As Malatesta once argued, 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 a 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] It is doubtful he would have predicted that certain anarchists would be included in such believers!

Neither anarchism nor the CNT program called for suppressing other viewpoints. The various viewpoints that existed among the workforce and population would be reflected in the
deliberations and debates of the workplace and community assemblies as well as in the various local and regional congresses and conference and on their co-ordinating Councils. The
various political groups would be free to organise, publish their periodicals and seek influence in the various self-managed assemblies and structures that existed. The CNT would
be dominant because it had overwhelming support among the workers of Catalonia (and would have remained dominant as long as that continued).

What is essential to a state is that its authority and armed power be top-down, separate and distinct from the population. Otherwise it could not function to protect the power of a
boss class. When a population in society directly and democratically controls the armed force (in fact, effectively is the armed force as in the case of the CNT militias), directly
manages its own fairs in decentralised, federal organisations based on self-management from the bottom upwards and manages the economy, this is not a "state" in the historical
sense. Thus the CNT would not in any real sense had "seized power" in Catalonia, rather it would have allowed the mass of people, previously disempowered by the state, to take
control of their own lives -- both individually and collectively -- by smashing the state and replacing it by a free federation of workers' associations.

What this means is that a non-hierarchical society must be imposed by the working class against the opposition of those who would lose power. In building the new world we must
destroy the old one. Revolutions are authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to structures and social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy and inequality.
It is not "authoritarian" to destroy authority, in other words! Revolutions, above all else, must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed (indeed, they are acts of liberation in
which the oppressed end their oppression by their own direct action). That is, they must develop structures that involve the great majority of the population, who have previously
been excluded from decision making about social and economic issues.

So the dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" was a false one and fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning parties, etc. under an anarchist system, far
from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and so on should have existed for all but the parties would only have as much influence as they exerted in union, workplace,
community, militia (and so on) assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes, but within the rank and file and within organisations organised in a libertarian manner.
Anarchism does not respect the "freedom" to be a capitalist, boss or politician.

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the CNT and FAI committees favoured "collaboration" from the top down. In this they followed the example of the UGT and its
"Workers' Alliances" rather than their own activities previous to the military revolt. Why? Why did the CNT and FAI in Catalonia reject their previous political perspective and
reject the basis ideas of anarchism? As shown above, the CNT and FAI has successfully applied their ideas in many insurrections before hand. Why the change of direction? There were
two main reasons.

Firstly, while a majority in Catalonia and certain other parts of Spain, the CNT and FAI were a minority in such areas as Castille and Asturias. To combat fascism required the
combined forces of all parties and unions and by collaborating with a UGT-like "Anti-Fascist Alliance" in Catalonia, it was believed that such alliances could be formed elsewhere,
with equality for the CNT ensured by the Catalan CNT's decision of equal representation for minority organisations in the Catalan Anti-Fascist Committee. This would, hopefully,
also ensure aid to CNT militias via the government's vast gold reserves and stop foreign intervention by Britain and other countries to protect their interests if libertarian
communism was declared.

However, as Vernon Richards argues:

    "This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes, which many of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since recognised, but for which there can be no excuse, since they were
    not mistakes of judgement but the deliberate abandonment of the principles of the CNT. Firstly, that an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of reaction could be
    waged more successfully within the framework of the State and subordinating all else, including the transformation of the economic and social structure of the country, to
    winning the war. Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and sincerely, and at a time when power
    was in the hands of the two workers organisations. . .

    "All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a desert of futility. Collaboration with them
    could not, by any stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco. On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political parties meant the recreation of
    governmental institutions and the transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central body with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the workers, the
    responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and its objectives were also transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this could not have other than an adverse effect on the
    morale of the revolutionary fighters." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 42]

In addition, in failing to take the initiative to unite the working class independently of the Republican state at the crucial moment, in July of '36, the CNT of Catalonia was in
effect abandoning the only feasible alternative to the Popular Front strategy. Without a libertarian system of popular self-management, the CNT and FAI had no alternative but to
join the bourgeois state. For a revolution to be successful, as Bakunin and Kropotkin argued, it needs to create libertarian organisations (such as workers' associations, free
communes and their federations) which can effectively replace the state and the market, that is to create a widespread libertarian organisation for social and economic decision
making through which working class people can start to set their own agendas. Only by going this can the state and capitalism be effectively smashed. If this is not done and the
state is ignored rather than smashed, it continue and get stronger as it will be the only medium that exists for wide scale decision making. This will result in revolutionaries
having to work within it, trying to influence it since no other means exist to reach collective decisions.

The failure to smash the state, this first betrayal of anarchist principles, led to all the rest, and so the defeat of the revolution. Not destroying the state meant that the
revolution could never be fully successful economically as politics and economics are bound together so closely. Only under the political conditions of anarchism can its economic
conditions flourish and vice versa.

The CNT had never considered a "strategy" of collaboration with the Popular Front prior to July of '36. In the months leading up to the July explosion, the CNT had consistently
criticised the Popular Front strategy as a fake unity of leaders over the workers, a strategy that would subordinate the working class to capitalist legality. However, in July of
'36, the CNT conferences in Catalonia had not seen clearly that their "temporary" participation in the Anti-Fascist Militia Committee would drag them inexorably into a practice
of collaboration with the Popular Front. As Christie argues, "the Militias Committee was a compromise, an artificial political solution . . . It . . . drew the CNT-FAI leadership
inexorably into the State apparatus, until them its principle enemy, and led to the steady erosion of anarchist influence and credibility." [Op. Cit., p. 105]

Secondly, the fear of fascism played a key role. After all, this was 1936. The CNT and FAI had seen their comrades in Italy and Germany being crushed by fascist dictatorships,
sent to concentration camps and so on. In Spain, Franco's forces were slaughtering union and political militants and members by the tens of thousands (soon to reach hundreds
of thousands by the end of the war and beyond). The insurrection had not been initiated by the people themselves (as had the previous revolts in the 1930s) and this also had a
psychological impact on the decision making process. The anarchists were, therefore, in a position of being caught between two evils -- fascism and the bourgeois state, elements of
which had fought with them on the streets. To pursue anarchist politics at such a time, it was argued, could have resulted in the CNT fighting on two fronts -- against the fascists
and also against the Republican government. Such a situation would have been unbearable and so it was better to accept collaboration than aid Fascism by dividing the forces of the
anti-fascist camp.

However, such a perspective failed to appreciate the depth of hatred the politicians and bourgeois had for the CNT. Indeed, by their actions it would appear they preferred fascism
to the social revolution. So, in the name of "anti-fascist" unity, the CNT worked with parties and classes which hated both them and the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff
"both before and after July 19th, an unwavering determination to crush the revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the policies of the Republican government; irrespective
of the party in power." [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 40]

Rather than eliminate a civil war developing within the civil war, the policy of the CNT just postponed it -- until such time as the state was stronger than the working class. The
Republican government was quite happy to attack the gains of the revolution, physically attacking rural and urban collectives, union halls, assassinating CNT and FAI members of so
on. The difference was the CNT's act only postponed such conflict until the balance of power had shifted back towards the status quo.

Moreover, the fact that the bourgeois republic was fighting fascism could have meant that it would have tolerated the CNT social revolution rather than fight it (and so weakening
its own fight against Franco). However, such an argument remains moot.

It is clear that anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As a Scottish anarchist in Barcelona during the revolution argued, "Fascism is not something new, some new
force of evil opposed to society, but is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding name . . . Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working class
is being betrayed." [Ethal McDonald, Workers Free Press, Oct. 1937] This was also argued by the Friends of Durruti who stated that "[d]emocracy defeated the Spanish people, not
Fascism." [The Friends of Durruti Accuse]

The majority at the July 20-21 conferences went along with proposal of postponing the social revolution, of starting the work of creating libertarian communism, and smashing the
state and replacing it with a federation of workers' assemblies. Most of the CNT militants there saw it as a temporary expedient, until the rest of Spain was freed from Franco's
forces (in particular, Aragon and Saragossa). Companys' (the head of the Catalan government) had proposed the creation of a body containing representatives of all anti-fascist
parties and unions called the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias," sponsored by his government. The CNT meeting agreed to this proposal, though only on condition that the
CNT be given the majority on it. A sizeable minority of delegates were apparently disgusted by this decision. The delegation from Bajo Llobregat County (an industrial area south of
Barcelona) walked out saying they would never go along with government collaboration.

Therefore, the decision to postpone the revolution and so to ignore the state rather than smashing was a product of isolation and the fear of a fascist victory. However, while
"isolation" may explain the Catalan militants' fears and so decisions, it does not justify their decision. If the CNT of Catalonia had given Companys the boot and set up a
federation of workplace and community assemblies in Catalonia, uniting the rank-and-file of the other unions with the CNT, this would have strengthened the resolve of workers in
other parts of Spain, and it might have also inspired workers in nearby countries to move in a similar direction.

Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution across Spain and the dangers of fascism were real problems, but they do not excuse the libertarian movement for its
mistakes. On the contrary, in following the course of action advised by leaders like Horacio Prieto and Abad Diego de Santillan, the CNT only weakened the revolution and helped to
discredit libertarian socialism. After all, as Bakunin and Kropotkin continually stressed, revolutions break out in specific areas and then spread outward -- isolation is a feature
of revolution which can only be overcome by action, by showing a practical example which others can follow.

Most of the CNT militants at the July 20th meeting saw the compromise as a temporary expedient, until the rest of Spain was freed from Franco's forces (in particular, Aragon and
Saragossa). As the official account states, "[t]he situation was considered and it was unanimously decided not to mention Libertarian Communism until such time as we had captured
that part of Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." [quoted by Christie, Op. Cit., p. 102] However, the membership of the CNT decided themselves to start the social revolution
("very rapidly collectives . . . began to spring up. It did not happen on instructions from the CNT leadership . . . the initiative came from CNT militants" [Ronald Fraser, Blood
of Spain, p. 349]). The social revolution began anyway, from below, but without the key political aspect (abolition of the state) and so was fatally compromised from the beginning.

As Stuart Christie argues:

    "The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia saw themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social revolution, fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they
    committed themselves to the solutions offered by social revolution, regardless of the difficulties involved in fighting both fascism and international capitalism, or, through
    fear of fascism . . . they sacrificed their anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to bolster, to become part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced with an imperfect
    state of affairs and preferring defeat to a possibly Pyrrhic victory, Catalan anarchist leadership renounced anarchism in the name of expediency and removed the social
    transformation of Spain from their agenda.

    "But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the decision whether or not to implement Libertarian Communism was not theirs to make. Anarchism was not something which
    could be transformed from theory to practice by organisational decree. . .

    "What the CNT-FAI leadership had failed to take on board was the fact that the spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July had developed a political direction of its own. On
    their own initiative, without any intervention by the leadership of the unions or political parties, the rank and file militants of the CNT, representing the dominant force
    within the Barcelona working class, together with other union militants had, with the collapse of State power, . . . been welded . . . into genuinely popular non-partisan
    revolutionary committees . . . in their respective neighbourhoods. They were the natural organisms of the revolution itself and direct expression of popular power." [Op. Cit.,
    p. 99]

In other words, the bulk of the CNT-FAI membership acted in an anarchist way while the higher committees compromised their politics and achievements in the name of anti-fascist
unity. In this the membership followed years of anarchist practice and theory. It was fear of fascism which made many of the leading militants of the CNT abandon anarchist politics
and instead embrace "anti-fascist unity" and compromise with the bourgeois republic. To claim that July 1936 indicated the failure of anarchism means to ignore the constructive
work of millions of CNT members in their workplaces, communities and militias and instead concentrate on a few militants who made the terrible mistake of ignoring their political
ideas in an extremely difficult situation. As we said above, this may explain the decision but it does not justify it.

Therefore, it is clear that the experiences of the CNT and FAI in 1936 indicate a failure of anarchists to apply their politics rather than the failure of those politics. The
examples of the Makhnovists, the revolts in Spain between 1932 and 1934 as well as the Council of Aragon show beyond doubt that this is the case. Rather than act as anarchists in
July 1936, the militants of the Catalan CNT and FAI ignored their basic ideas (not lightly, we stress, but in response to real dangers). They later justified their decisions by
putting their options in a Marxist light -- "either we impose libertarian communism, and so become an anarchist dictatorship, or we collaborate with the democratic government." As
Vernon Richards makes clear:

    "Such alternatives are contrary to the most elementary principles of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism. In the first place, an 'anarchist dictatorship' is a contradiction
    in terms (in the same way as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is), for the moment anarchists impose their social ideas on the people by force, they cease being anarchists
    . . . the arms of the CNT-FAI held could be no use for imposing libertarian communism . . . The power of the people in arms can only be used in the defence of the revolution
    and the freedoms won by their militancy and their sacrificed. We do not for one moment assume that all social revolutions are necessarily anarchist. But whatever form the
    revolution against authority takes, the role of anarchists is clear: that of inciting the people to abolish capitalistic property and the institutions through which it
    exercises its power for the exploitation of the majority by a minority. . . the role of anarchists [is] to support, to incite and encourage the development of the social
    revolution and to frustrate any attempts by the bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself, which it would seek to do." [Op. Cit., pp. 43-6]

Their compromise in the name of anti-fascist unity contained the rest of their mistakes. Joining the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" was the second mistake as at no
time could it be considered as the embryo of a new workers' power. It was, rather, an organisation like the pre-war UGT "Workers' Alliances" -- an attempt to create links between
the top-level of other unions and parties. Such an organisation, as the CNT recognised before the war (see section 5), could not be a means of creating a revolutionary federation
of workers' associations and communes and, in fact, a hindrance to such a development, if not its chief impediment.

Given that the CNT had rejected the call for revolution in favour of anti-fascist unit on July 20th, such a development does not reflect the CNT's pre-war program. Rather it was a
reversion to Felix Morrow's Trotskyist position of joining the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" in spite of its non-revolutionary nature (see section 5).

The CNT did not carry out its program (and so apply anarchist politics) and so did not replace the Generalitat (Catalan State) with a Defence Council in which only union/workplace
assemblies (not political parties) were represented. To start the process of creating libertarian communism all the CNT would have had do was to call a Regional Congress of unions
and invite the UGT, independent unions and unorganised workplaces to send delegates. It could also have invited the various neighbourhood and village defence committees that had
either sprung up spontaneously or were already organised before the war as part of the CNT. Unlike the other revolts it took part in the 1930s, the CNT did not apply anarchist
politics. However, to judge anarchism by this single failure means to ignore the whole history of anarchism and its successful applications elsewhere, including by the CNT and FAI
during numerous revolts in Spain during the 1930s and in Aragon in 1936.

Ironically enough, Kropotkin had attacked the official CNT line of not mentioning Libertarian Communism "until such time as we had captured that part of Spain that was in the hands
of the rebels." In analysing the Paris Commune Kropotkin had lambasted those who had argued "Let us first make sure of victory, and then see what can be done." His comments are
worth quoting at length:

    "Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of forming a free commune without laying hands upon property! As if there were any way of conquering the foe while the great
    mass of the people is not directly interested in the triumph of the revolution, by seeing that it will bring material, moral and intellectual well-being to everybody.

    "The same thing happened with regard to the principle of government. By proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential anarchist principle, which was
    the breakdown of the state.

    "And yet, if we admit that a central government to regulate the relations of communes between themselves is quite needless, why should we admit its necessity to regulate the
    mutual relations of the groups which make up each commune? . . . There is no more reason for a government inside the commune than for a government outside." [The Commune of
    Paris]

Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting until victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's actions
in co-operating with the state and joining representative bodies. In his words:

    "Paris sent her devoted sons to the town hall. There, shelved in the midst of files of old papers, obliged to rule when their instincts prompted them to be and to act among
    the people, obliged to discuss when it was needful to act, to compromise when no compromise was the best policy, and, finally, losing the inspiration which only comes from
    continual contact with the masses, they saw themselves reduced to impotence. Being paralysed by their separation from the people -- the revolutionary centre of light and heat
    -- they themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.]

Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of the CNT who collaborated with the state. As anarchist turned Minister admitted after the war, "[w]e were in the
government, but the streets were slipping away from us. We had lost the workers' trust and the movement's unity had been whittled away." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 274] The
actions of the CNT-FAI higher committees and Ministers helped paralyse and defeat the May Days revolt of 1937. The CNT committees and leaders become increasingly isolated from the
people, they compromised again and again and, ultimately, became an impotent force. Kropotkin was proved correct. Which means that far from refuting anarchist politics or analysis,
the experience of the CNT-FAI in the Spanish Revolution confirms it.

In summary, therefore, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 indicates the failure of anarchists rather than the failure of anarchism.

One last point, it could be argued that anarchist theory allowed the leadership of the CNT and FAI to paint their collaboration with the state as a libertarian policy. That is, of
course, correct. Anarchism is against the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" just as much as it is against the actual dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the existing
system and its off-shoots such as fascism). This allowed the CNT and FAI leaders to argue that they were following anarchist theory by not destroying the state completely in July
1936. Of course, such a position cannot be used to discredit anarchism simply because such a revision meant that it can never be libertarian to abolish government and the state. In
other words, the use made of anarchist theory by the leaders of the CNT and FAI in this case presents nothing else than a betrayal of that theory rather than its legitimate use.

Also, and more importantly, while anarchist theory was corrupted to justify working with other parties and unions in a democratic state, Marxist theory was used to justify the
brutal one-party dictatorship of the Bolsheviks, first under Lenin and the Stalin. That, we feel, sums up the difference between anarchism and Leninism quite well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to errors and distortions in Phil Mitchinson's Marxism and direct action

Phil Mitchinson essay Marxism and direct action attempts to provide a "Marxist" (i.e. Leninist/Trotskyist) critique of the current "Direct Action" based groups which came to notice
at various demonstrations across the world -- most famously in Seattle, November 1999. He, correctly, links these groups and currents with anarchism. However, his "critique" is
nothing but a self-contradictory collection of false assertions, lies and nonsense, as we shall prove (indeed, his "critique" seems more the product of envy at anarchist influence
in these movements than the product of scholarship or objectivity). That is why we have decided to reply to his article -- it gives us an ideal possibility to indicate the depths
to which some Marxists will swoop to distort anarchist politics and movements.

1. How does Mitchinson impoverish the politics of the direct action groups?

He begins by noting that the "recent anti-capitalist demonstrations have brought together many different groups protesting against the destruction of the environment, racism, the
exploitation of the third world, and also many ordinary young people protesting at the state of things in general. They have certainly shattered the myth that everyone is happy and
that the capitalist system is accepted as the only possible form of society." Of course, this is correct. What he fails to mention is that these demonstrations and groups managed
to do this without the "guidance" of any Leninist party -- indeed, the vanguard parties are noticeable by their absence and their frantic efforts to catch up with these movements.
This, of course, is not the first time this has happened. Looking at every revolution we discover the "revolutionary" parties either playing no role in their early stages or a
distinctly counter-productive role.

He states that "[a]ll around us we see the misery this system causes. Famine, war, unemployment, homelessness and despair, these are the violent acts that the system perpetrates
against millions every day." However, as much as these aspects of capitalism are terrible, the anti-capitalist revolt expressed by many within the direct action groups is much
wider than this (standard) leftist list. The movements, or at least parts of them, have a much more radical critique of the evils of capitalism -- one that bases it self on
abolishing alienation, domination, wage slavery, oppression, exploitation, the spiritual as well as material poverty of everyday life, by means of self-management, autonomy,
self-organisation and direct action. They raise the possibility of playful, meaningful, empowering and productive self-activity to replace "tedious, over-tiring jobs" as well as
the vision of a libertarian communist (i.e. moneyless, stateless) society. Mitchinson's account of the movements he is trying to critique is as poverty stricken intellectually as
the capitalist system these movements are challenging. Leninists like Mitchinson, instead of a swallowing a dose of humility and learning from the very different ways this new
wave of protest is being framed, are trying to squeeze the protest into their own particular one-dimensional model of revolution. Being unable to understand the movements he is
referring to, he pushes their vision into the narrow confines of his ideology and distorts it.

He goes on to state that "[w]itnessing and experiencing this destruction and chaos, young people everywhere are driven to protest." Of course, anyone who is part of these movements
will tell you that a wide cross-section of age groups are involved, not just "young people." However, Mitchinson's comments on age are not surprising -- ever since Lenin, Bolshevik
inspired Marxists have attributed other, more radical, political theories, analyses and visions to the alleged youth of those who hold these opinions (in spite of the facts). In
other words, these ideas, they claim, are the produce of immaturity, inexperience and youth and will, hopefully, be grown out of. Just as many parents mutter to themselves that
their anarchist (or socialist, homosexual, whatever) children will "grow out of it", Lenin and his followers like Mitchinson consider themselves as the wiser, older relations
(perhaps a friendly Uncle or a Big Brother?) of these "young" rebels and hope they will "grow out of" their infantile politics.

The word patronising does not do Mitchinson justice!

2. Does anarchism "juxtapose" theory and action?

Now Mitchinson launches into his first strawman of his essay. He asserts:

    "However, the idea of getting involved in a political organisation is a turn off for many, who understandably want to do something, and do something now. In reality, the
    attempt to juxtapose organisation, discussion, and debate with 'direct action' is pure sophistry."

We are not aware of any anarchist or direct action group which does not discuss and debate their actions, the rationale of their actions and the aims of their actions. These
demonstrations that "young people" apparently turn up at are, in fact, organised by groups who have meetings, discuss their ideas, their objectives, their politics, and so on. That
much should be obvious. In reality, it is Mitchinson who expresses "pure sophistry," not the "many" who he claims act without thinking. And, of course, he fails to mention the two
days of meetings, discussion and debate which took place the Saturday/Sunday before the May Day actions in London. To mention the May Day 2000 conference would confuse the reader
with facts and so goes unmentioned.

He then asserts that the "ideas of Marxism are not the subject of academic study, they are precisely a guide to action." Of course, we have to point out here that the Marxist
Parties Mitchinson urges us to build did not take part in organising the actions he praises (a few members of these parties did come along, on some of them, to sell papers, of
course, but this is hardly a "vanguard" role). In general, the vanguard parties were noticeable by their absence or, at best, their lack of numbers and involvement. If we judge
people by what they do, rather than what they say (as Marx urged), then we must draw the conclusion that the Marxism of Mitchinson is a guide to inaction rather than action.

Mitchinson continues by stating Marxists "are all in favour of action, but it must be clearly thought out, with definite aims and objectives if it is to succeed. Otherwise
we end up with directionless action." It would be impolite to point out that no anarchist or member of a direct action organisation would disagree with this statement. Every
anti-capitalist demonstration has had a definite aim and objective, was clearly thought out and organised. It did not "just happen." Mitchinson presents us with a strawman so
fragile that even a breeze of reality would make it disintegrate.

The question is, of course, what kind of organisation do we create, how do we determine our aims and objectives. That is the key question, one that Mitchinson hides behind
the strawman of organisation versus non-organisation, planned action versus "directionless action." To state it bluntly, the question is actually one of do we organise in an
authoritarian manner or a libertarian manner, not whether or not we organise. Mitchinson may not see the difference (in which case he thinks all organisation is "authoritarian")
but for anarchists and members of direct action groups the difference is vital.

He goes on to state:

    "Furthermore without political organisation who decides what action is to be taken, when and where? There can be no greater direct action than the seizing of control over
    our own lives by the vast majority of society. In that act lies the essence of revolution. Not just an aimless 'direct action' but mass, democratic and conscious action, the
    struggle not just against capitalism, but for a new form of society, socialism."

Again Mitchinson presents us with the strawman of "conscious" action verses "aimless" action. As noted above, the anti-capitalist demonstrations were organised -- non-hierarchical
groups decided collectively what action was to be organised, when and where. The real question is not organisation versus non-organisation but rather authoritarian versus
libertarian organisation. Either decision making from the bottom up or decision making from the top-down. As for there bring "no greater direct action" than revolution, well,
anarchists have been saying that for over one hundred years -- we don't need a Marxist to tell us our own ideas!

3. How does Mitchinson distort the London May Day demo?

He then gets to the crux of the issue -- "So, what comes next?" He goes on to assert:

    "The organisers of the demo tell us this was not a protest in order to secure changes, reforms apparently are a waste of time. No, simply by participating in what they call the
    'carnival' we become better people, and eventually more and more people will participate, until a critical mass is reached and we all ignore capitalism, don't pay our bills,
    until they go away. What an infantile flight of fancy!"

Yes, indeed, what an infantile flight of fancy! However, the flight is purely Mitchinson's. No one in RTS (or any other anarchist) makes such a claim. Yes, RTS urged people to
take part in a carnival -- as they argue, "[m]any of the great moments of revolutionary history were carnivalesque . . . But we are not waiting for these moments of carnivalesque
revolution, we are trying to merge them into every moment of everyday life. We cannot live on one-off days, a letting of stream, safety values for society enabling life to return
to normal the next day or for hierarchical domination to return, as did in so many historical revolutions. Revolution is not an act but a process and carnival can prepare us for
this process." [Maybe, p. 9] Thus "carnival" is not seen as an end to itself (as Mitchinson asserts) but rather an aid to the creation of a revolutionary movement. Mitchinson
confuses a celebration of May Day with an insurrection! In the words of Maybe:

    "And although Mayday is just one day, it seeks to incite continuous creativity and action towards a radical remaking of everyday life. Steeped in a history of daily struggle,
    of 'day in day out' organising for social change, but pulsating with the celebration of renewal and fresh hope that returns with the coming of summer. Mayday will always be a
    pivotal moment." [Maybe, p. 5]

Maybe is clear -- we need to organise the daily struggle and enjoy ourselves while we are at it. Mitchinson' distortion of that message is pitiful.

4. Do anarchists really think "the bosses will do nothing to defend their system"?

He continues:

    "The genuine intentions of those protesting is not open to question. However, the way to hell is paved with many such good intentions. Are we really to believe that whilst we
    all 'place ourselves outside of capitalism', the bosses will do nothing to defend their system? This ostrich like tactic of burying our heads in the sand until they go away is
    not serious. Nor is it action. In reality, it is irresponsible, indirect inaction."

The comment about "indirect inaction" is somewhat funny coming from a political tendency which did not produce a movement of the importance of Seattle 1999 and is now trying to
recruit from it. But it would be interesting to discover in which anarchist work comes the notion that we do not think the bosses will not defend their system. Yes, Lenin did
claim that anarchists would "lay down their arms" after a revolution, but as Murray Bookchin notes, anarchists are "not so naive as to believe anarchism could be established
overnight. In imputing this notion to Bakunin, Marx and Engels wilfully distorted the Russian anarchist's views. Nor did the anarchists . . . believe that the abolition of the
state involved 'laying down arms' immediately after the revolution. . ." [ Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213] Bakunin, for example, thought the "Commune would be organised by the
standing federation of the Barricades" and that "the federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would] organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating
reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph
of the revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170 and p. 171]

Moreover, RTS actions have continually came into conflict with the state and its forces of defence. Mitchinson seems to think that the participants of RTS and its demonstrations
are incapable of actually understanding and learning from their experiences -- they have seen and felt the capitalist system defending itself. Anyone on the J18, N30, A16 or M1
demos or just watching them on TV would have seen the capitalist system defending itself with vigour -- and the protestors fighting back. Rather than acknowledge the obvious,
Mitchinson asserts nonsense. The only person burying their head in the sand is Mitchinson if he ignores the experiences of his own senses (and the basic principles of materialism)
in favour of an ideological diatribe with no basis in reality.

What is "irresponsible" is misrepresenting the viewpoints of your enemies and expecting them not to point our your errors.

5. How does Mitchinson misrepresent anarchist organisation?

Mitchinson now moves onto the real enemy, anarchism. He asserts that:

    "Anarchist organisations have always hidden behind a facade of 'self-organisation'. They claim to have no leaders, no policy etc. Yet who decides?"

Yes, anarchist groups claim to have no leaders but they do not claim to be without policies. Anyone with any comprehension of anarchist theory and history would know this (just one
example, Bakunin argued that we needed to establish "a genuine workers' program -- the policy of the International [Workers Association]" ["The Policy of the International", The
Basic Bakunin, p. 100]).

Mitchinson asks the question, if we do not have leaders, "who decides?" That in itself exposes the authoritarian nature of his politics and the Bolshevik style party. He obviously
cannot comprehend that, without leaders deciding things for us, we manage our own affairs -- we decide the policy of our organisations collectively, by the direct democracy of the
membership. Forgetting his early comment of that there is "no greater direct action than the seizing of control over our own lives by the vast majority of society," he now asks how
the vast majority of society can seize control over our own lives without leaders to tell us what to do!

Anarchists reject the idea of leaders -- instead we argue for the "leadership of ideas." As we discuss this concept in section J.3.6 and so will not do so here. However, the
key concept is that anarchists seek to spread their ideas by discussing their politics as equals in popular organisations and convincing the mass assemblies of these bodies by
argument. Rather than using these bodies to be elected to positions of power (i.e. leadership as it is traditionally understood) anarchists consider it essential that power remains
in the hands of the base of an organisation and argue that the policies of the organisation be decided by the member directly in assemblies and co-ordinated by conferences of
mandated, recallable delegates (see section A.2.9 for more discussion).

This is to be expected, of course, as anarchists believe that a free society can only be created by organisations which reflect the principles of that society. Hence we see
policies being made by those affected by them and oppose attempts to turn self-managed organisations into little more than vehicles to elect "leaders." A free society is a
self-managed one and can only be created by self-management in the class struggle or revolutionary process. All that revolutionaries should do is try and influence the decisions
these organisations make by discussing our ideas with their membership -- simply as any other member could in the mass assemblies the organisation is built upon. Any attempt by
revolutionaries to seize power upon behalf of these organisations means destroying their revolutionary potential and the revolution itself by replacing the participation of all
with the power of a few (the party).

Thus anarchist theory and practice is very clear on the question "who decides" -- it is those who are affected by the question via group assemblies and conferences of mandated,
recallable delegates. Rather than have "no policy," policy in an anarchist organisation is decided directly by the membership. Without "leaders" -- without power delegated into the
hands of a few -- who else could make the decisions and policy? That Mitchinson cannot comprehend this implies that he cannot envision a society without a few telling the many what
to do.

He continues:

    "If there was no leadership and no policy then there could be no action of any kind. The recent demonstrations have been highly organised and co-ordinated on an international
    scale. Good, so it should be. However, without organisation and democracy no-one, except a clique at the top, has any say in why, where and when. Such a movement will never
    bring international capital trembling to its knees."

Firstly, we must point out that these demonstrations which have spread like wild-fire across the world have, most definitely, made international capital nervous. Secondly, we
must point out that no Leninist vanguards were involved in organising them (a few members turned up to sell papers later, once their significance had registered with the party
leadership). Thirdly, we must point out that no Leninist vanguard has made "international capital" tremble in the knees for quite a few decades -- since 1917, only Stalinist
vanguards have had any effect (and, of course, "international capital" soon realised they could work with the Bolsheviks and other "Communist" leaders as one ruling elite with
another). It seems somewhat ironic that a Leninist, whose movement was noticeable in its absence, mocks the first movement to scare the ruling class for nearly 30 years.

Secondly, we must note that the policy decided upon by the multitude of groups across the world was decided upon by the members of those groups. They practised organisation and
direct democracy to make their policy decisions and implement them. Given that Mitchinson wonders how people can make decisions without leaders, his comments about rule by "a
clique at the top" are somewhat ironic. As the history of the Russian Revolution indicates, a highly centralised state system (which mimics the highly centralised party) soon
results in rule by the top party officials, not by the mass of people.

Mitchinson again decides to flog his fallacy of organisation versus non-organisation:

    "One of the best known anarchist groups in Britain, Reclaim the Streets, save the game away in their spoof Mayday publication, 'Maybe'. Incidentally, who wrote these articles,
    who decided what went in and what didn't, who edited it, where did the money come from? Our intention here is not to accuse them of dodgy financing - simply to point out that
    this 'no leaders' stuff is a self-organised myth."

It states who put together MayDay on page 5 of the paper. It was "an organic group of 'guerrilla gardeners'" -- in other words, members of Reclaim the Streets who desired to
produce the paper for that event. These people would have joined the group producing it via the weekly RTS open meetings and would have been held accountable to that same open
meeting. No great mystery there -- if you have even the slightest vision of how a non-hierarchical organisation works. Rather than being a "myth", RTS shows that we do not need to
follow leaders -- instead we can manage our own organisations directly and freely participate in projects organised via the main open meeting. Writing articles, editing, and so on
are not the work of "leaders" -- rather they are simply tasks that need doing. They do not imply a leadership role -- if they did then every hack journalist is a "leader."

He continues to attack what he cannot understand:

    "On page 20 they announce 'Reclaim the streets is non-hierarchical, spontaneous and self-organised. We have no leaders, no committee, no board of directors, no spokes people.
    There is no centralised unit for decision making, strategic planning and production of ideology. There is no membership and no formalised commitment. There is no master plan
    and no pre-defined agenda.'

    "There are two problems here. Firstly who is 'we', who made the above statement, and who decided it. Secondly, if it were true, it would not be something of which to be proud.
    Whether you like it or not, there is no way the capitalist system will ever be overthrown by such a haphazard and slipshod method."

Taking the first issue, "who is 'we,' who made the above statement, and who decided it." Why, it is the membership of RTS -- decided via their weekly open meeting (as mentioned
on that page). That Mitchinson cannot comprehend this says a lot about his politics and vision. He cannot comprehend self-management, direct democracy. He seems not to be able to
understand that groups can make decisions collectively, without having to elect leaders to make any decisions for them.

Taking the second issue, it is clear that Mitchinson fails to understand the role of RTS (and other anarchist groups). Anarchists do not try to overthrow capitalism on behalf of
others -- they urge them to overthrow it themselves, by their own direct action. The aim of groups like RTS is to encourage people to take direct action, to fight the powers that
be and, in the process, create their own organs of self-management and resistance. Such a process of working class self-activity and self-organisation in struggle is the starting
process of every revolution. People in struggle create their own organisations -- such as soviets (workers' councils), factory committees, community assemblies -- through which
they start to manage their own affairs and, hopefully, overthrow the state and abolish capitalism. It is not the task of RTS to overthrow capitalism, it is the task of the whole
population.

Moreover, many anarchists do see the need for a specific anarchist organisation -- three national federations exist in the UK, for example. RTS does not need to organise in this
fashion simply because such groups already exist. It is not its role -- its role is a means to encourage self-activity and direct action as well as raising libertarian ideas in a
popular manner. For more "serious" political organisation, people can and do turn to other anarchist groups and federations.

The street carnival principle of RTS is precisely the type of organising anarchists excel at -- namely fun organising that catches the fun and excitement of popular direct action
and, most importantly, gets people out on the streets -- something Marxists have failed to do very well (if at all). It's a small step from organising a street carnival to further,
"more serious" organising. Anarchist revolution is about bringing joy back into human lives, not endless (and often dishonest) polemics on the ideas of long dead philosophers.
Rather, it is about creating a philosophy which, while inspired by past thinkers, is not subservient to them and aims to base itself on current struggles and needs rather than past
ones. It is also about building a new political culture, one that is popular, active, street-based (versus ivory-tower elitist), and above all, fun. Only this way can we catch the
imagination of everyday people and move them from resigned apathy to active resistance. The Marxists have tried their approach, and it has been a resounding failure -- everyday
people consider Marxism at best irrelevant, and at worst, inhuman and lifeless. Fortunately, anarchists are not following the Marxist model of organising, having learned from
history

Thus Mitchinson fails to understand the role of RTS or its position in the UK anarchist movement.

He then asserts:

    "There is no theory, no coherent analysis of society, no alternative programme. To brag of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a lack of coherence, in the face of such a
    highly organised and brutal enemy as international capital, is surely the height of irresponsibility."

Firstly, anyone reading Maybe or other RTS publications will quickly see there is theory, coherent analysis and an alternative vision. As Mitchinson has obviously read Maybe we
can only assume his claim is a conscious lie. Secondly, RTS in the quoted passage clearly do not "brag of a lack of direction, a lack of purpose and a lack of coherence." They do
state there is no "centralised unit for decision-making" -- which is true, they have a decentralised unit for decision-making (direct democracy in open meetings). There is "no
master-plan," etc. as any plans are decided upon by these open meetings. There is no pre-defined agenda because, as a democratic organisation, it is up to the open meeting to
define their own agenda.

It is only Mitchinson's assumption that only centralised parties, with leaders making the decisions, can have "direction," "purpose" and "coherence." As can be seen by their
actions that RTS does have direction, purpose and coherence. Needless to say, while other anarchists may be critical about RTS and its actions, we do not deny that it has been an
effective organisation, involving a great many people in its actions who would probably not be involved in political activities. Rather than being "irresponsible," RTS shows the
validity of libertarian organisation and its effectiveness. No Marxist Party has remotely approached RTS's successes in terms of involving people in political actions. This is
hardly a surprise.

6. How does Mitchinson define anarchism wrongly?

Mitchinson states:

    "In reality the leaders of these movements are not devoid of ideology, they are anarchists. Anarchism is not simply a term of abuse, it comes from the Greek word 'anarchos'
    meaning 'without government'. To anarchists the state - the institutions of government, the army, police, courts etc. - is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world. It
    must be destroyed and replaced not with any new form of government, but the immediate introduction of a stateless society."

Firstly, "anarchos" actually means "without authority," or "contrary to authority" (as Kropotkin put it). It does not mean "without government" as such (although it commonly
is used that way). This means that anarchism does not consider the state as "the root of all that is wrong with the world" -- we consider it, like capitalism (wage slavery),
patriarchy, hierarchy in general, etc., as a symptom of a deeper problem, namely authority (or, more precisely, authoritarian social relations, hierarchical power -- of which class
power is a subset). Therefore anarchist theory is concerned with more than just the state -- it is against capitalism just as much as it is against the state, for example.

Thus, to state the obvious, as anyone familiar with anarchist theory could tell you, anarchists do not think that "the state" is the root of all that is wrong in the world.
Marxists have asserted this for years -- unfortunately for them, repetition does not make something true! Rather, anarchists see the state as one of the causes of evil in the world
and the main protector of all the rest. We also stress that in order to combat all the evils, we need to destroy the state so that we are in a position to abolish the other evils
by being in control of our own lives. For example, in order to abolish capitalism -- i.e. for workers' to seize the means of life -- the state, which protects property rights, must
be destroyed. Without doing so, the police and army will come and take back that which the workers' have taken. However, we do not claim that the state causes all of our problems
-- we do claim that getting rid of the state is an essential act, on which many others are dependent.

As Brian Morris argues:

    "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]

As can be seen, Mitchinson repeats into the usual Marxist straw man.

7. Does anarchism reject fighting for reforms?

After asserting the usual Marxist falsehoods about anarchism, he moves on:

    "This opposition to the state and authority leads to a rejection of participation in any form of parliamentary activity, belonging to a political party or fighting for any
    reforms, that is political change through the state."

Again Mitchinson smuggles in a falsehood into his "analysis." Anarchists do not reject "fighting for any reforms" -- far from it. We do reject parliamentary activity, that is true,
but we think that reforms can and must be won. We see such reforms coming via the direct action of those who desire them -- for example, by workers striking for better working
conditions, more wages and so. Anyone with even a passing awareness of anarchist thought would know this. Indeed, that is what direct action means -- it was coined by French
anarcho-syndicalists to describe the struggle for reforms within capitalism!

As for rejecting parliamentary activity, yes, anarchists do reject this form of "action." However, we do so for reasons Mitchinson fails to mention. Section J.2 of the FAQ
discusses the reasons why anarchists support direct action and oppose electioneering as a means of both reform and for revolution.

Similarly, anarchists reject political parties but we do not reject political organisations -- i.e. specific anarchist groups. The difference is that political parties are
generally organised in a hierarchical fashion and anarchist federations are not -- we try and create the new world when we organise rather than reproducing the traits of the
current, bourgeois, one.

Needless to say, Mitchinson seeks to recruit the people he is slandering and so holds out an olive-branch by stating that "[o]f course, Marxism is opposed to the brutal domination
of the capitalist state too. Marx saw a future society without a state but instead 'an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development
of all.' That is a self-governing people. The question however is how can this be achieved?"

Yes, as Bakunin argued, Marxists do not reject our programme out of hand. They claim to also seek a free society and so Mitchinson is correct -- the question is how can this be
achieved. Anarchists argue that a self-governing people can only be achieved by self-governing means -- "Bakunin . . . advocated socialist (i.e., libertarian) means in order
to achieve a socialist (i.e., libertarian) society." [Arthur Lehning, "Introduction", Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 27] Thus means and ends must be consistent --
revolutionary movements must be organised in a way that reflects the society we want to create. Thus a self-governing society can only be created by self-governing organisations
and a self-governing movement. If the revolutionary movement reflect bourgeois society -- for example, is hierarchical -- then it cannot create a free society. That is the
rationale for the way anarchist groups organise, including RTS. Marxists, as we will see, disagree and consider how a revolutionary movement organises itself as irrelevant.

Also, we must note that earlier Mitchinson denied that a self-governing organisation could exist when he was discussing RTS. He asserted that "[i]f there was no leadership and no
policy then there could be no action of any kind." Now he claims that it is possible, but only after the revolution. We will note the obvious contradiction -- how do people become
capable of self-government post-revolution if they do not practice it pre-revolution and, obviously, during the revolution?

8. Does anarchism see the state as the root of all problems?

Mitchinson moves on to assert that:

    "Since anarchism sees in the state the root of all problems, it therefore believes these problems will be resolved by the destruction of the state."

As noted above, anarchists do not see in the state the root of all problems. We do urge the destruction of the state but that is because the state is the protector of existing
society and in order to transform that society we need get rid of it. Kropotkin, for example, was well aware of "the evil done by Capitalism and the State that supports it."
[Evolution and Environment, p. 83] Rather than seeing the State as the root of all evil, anarchists are well aware that evil is caused by many things -- particularly capitalism
-- and that the state, as well as causing its own evils, supports and protects others. Thus anarchists are aware that the state is a tool for minority rule and only one source of
evil.

Mitchinson, after misrepresenting anarchist thought, states:

    "Marxism, meanwhile, sees the division of society into classes, a minority who own the means of producing wealth, and the majority of us whose labour is the source of that
    wealth, as the crux of the matter. It is this class division of society which gives rise to the state - because the minority need a special force to maintain their rule over
    the majority - which has evolved over thousands of years into the complicated structures we see today."

Anarchists would agree, as far as this goes. Bakunin 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] The idea that the state is a means to ensure class rule is one anarchists, as can be seen, would agree with.

However, anarchists do not reduce their understanding of the state to this simplistic Marxist analysis. 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, 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 it is true that the state (particularly under capitalism) acts as the agent of the capitalist class, it does not mean that it does not have interests of its own. The
State has developed as a means of imposing minority rule -- that much anarchists and Marxists can agree upon. To do so it has developed certain features, notably delegation of
power into the hands of a few. This feature of the state is a product of its function. However, function and feature are inseparable -- retain the feature and the function will be
re-established. In other words, maintain the state and minority rule will be re-established.

The simplistic class analysis of the state has always caused Marxists problems, particularly Trotskyists who used it to deny the obvious class nature of Stalinist Russia. Rather
than see the USSR as a class society in which the State bureaucracy exploited and oppressed the working class for its own benefits, Trotskyists argued it was an autocratic,
privileged bureaucracy in a classless society. As anarchist Camillo Berneri argued:

    "In history there is no absurdity. An autocratic bureaucracy is a class, therefore it is not absurd that it should exist in a society where classes remain -- the bureaucratic
    class and the proletarian class. If the USSR was a 'classless' society, it would also be a society without a bureaucratic autocracy, which is the natural fruit of the permanent
    existence of the State." ["The State and Classes", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no, 4, p. 49]

The weakness (or incompleteness) of the Marxist understanding of the state can best be seen by Trotsky's and his followers lack of understanding of Stalinism. As the state owned
all the land and means of production, there could be no classes and so the Soviet Union must be a classless society. However, the obvious privileges of the bureaucracy could not
be denied (as Trotsky was once a leading bureaucrat, he saw and experienced them at first hand). But as the state bureaucracy could not be a class and have class interests (by
definition), Trotsky could not see the wood for the trees. The actual practice of Leninism in power is enough to expose its own theoretical weaknesses.

9. Why is Mitchinson wrong about the "Abolishion [i.e. Abolition] of the state" ?

Mitchinson moves on to argue that the "modern capitalist state can wear many guises, monarchy, republic, dictatorship, but in the end its purpose remains the same, to maintain the
minority rule of the capitalist class. Marxism's goal therefore is not simply to abolish the state, but to put an end to class society." Needless to say, that is also anarchism's
goal. As Bakunin argued, "political transformation . . . [and] economic transformation . . . must be accomplished together and simultaneously." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 106] So, as
can be seen, anarchism's goal is not simply abolishing the state, but to put an end to class society. That anarchists have always argued the state and capitalism must be destroyed
at the same time is easily discovered from reading their works.

Continuing this theme he argues that the state "was born with the split of society into classes to defend private property. So long as there are classes there will be a state. So,
how can class society be ended? Not by its denial, but only by the victory of one of the contending classes. Triumph for capitalism spells ruin for millions."

Of course, we could point out here that many anthropologists disagree with the claim that the state is a product of class society. As Michael Taylor summarises, the "evidence does
not give this proposition 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]

Also, of course, as should be obvious from what we have said previously, anarchists do not think class society can be ended by "denial." As is clear from even a quick reading
of any anarchist thinker, anarchists seek to end class society as well as the state. However, we reject as simplistic the Marxist notion that the state exists purely to defend
classes. 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 part of the ruling class and (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.

10. Why is Mitchinson's comment that we face either "socialism or barbarism" actually undermine his case?

Mitchinson continues:

    "As Marx once explained the choice before us is not socialism or the status quo, but socialism or barbarism."

We should point out that it Rosa Luxemburg who is usually associated with this quote. She made her famous comment during the First World War. The start of this war saw the Marxist
German Social Democratic Party (and a host of others) vote for war credits in Parliament. This party was a mass workers' party which aimed to used every means, including elections,
to gain reforms for the working class. The net end result of this strategy was the voting for war credits and the support of their state and ruling class in the war -- that is, the
betrayal of the fundamental principles of socialism.

This event did not happen out of the blue. It was the end result of years of working within the bourgeois political system, of using elections ("political activity") as a means of
struggle. The Social Democratic Parties had already been plagued with reformist elements for years. These elements, again, did not come from nowhere but were rather the response to
what the party was actually doing. They desired to reform the party to bring its rhetoric in-line with its 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] The debacle of 1914 was a logical result of the means chosen, the evidence was already there for all to see (except, apparently, Lenin
who praised the "fundamentals of parliamentary tactics" of the German and International Social Democracy and how 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])

Needless to say, this result had been predicted by Bakunin over 40 years previously. And Mitchinson wants us to repeat this strategy? As Marx said, history repeats itself -- first
it is tragedy, second time it is farce.

11. Why is Mitchinson wrong to assert anarchists do not believe in defending a revolution?

Mitchinson argues that the "victory of the working class can only mean the destruction of the capitalist state. Will the capitalists take defeat like sporting ladies and gentlemen,
retiring quietly to the pavilion? No, all history suggests that they would not. The workers would need to create a new state, for the first time to defend the rule of the majority
over the minority."

Yes, indeed, all history does show that a ruling class will not retire quietly and a revolution will need to defend itself. If anarchists did believe that they would retire
peacefully then Marxists would be correct to attack us. However, Marxist assertions are false. Indeed, they must think anarchists are morons if they genuinely do think we do not
believe in defending a revolution. A few quotes should suffice to expose these Marxist claims as lies:

    "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades. . . [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would] organise a
    revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the
    insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1]

    "[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the
    workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by streets and quartiers,
    they will form the revolutionary federation of all the quartiers, the federative commune. . . All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives
    to organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

Bakunin was well aware that revolution implied "civil war" -- i.e. attempts by the ruling class to maintain its power (see, for example, his "Letters to a Frenchman" in Bakunin on
Anarchism). As can be seen, Bakunin was well aware of the needs to defend a revolution after destroying the state and abolishing capitalism. Similarly we discover Malatesta arguing
that we should "[a]rm all the population," and the "creation of a 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 by countries as yet not in a state of revolution." [Life and Ideas, p. 170 and
p. 166] In Malatesta's words:

    "But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery
    once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above
    all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the
    experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers
    (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear. . . [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 a respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers and
    property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, pp. 40-1]

Not only do we have this theoretical position, we can also point to concrete historical examples -- the Makhnovist movement in the Russian Revolution and the CNT militias during
the Spanish Revolution, among others -- that prove that anarchists do recognise the need and importance of defending a successful revolution.

Therefore, statements asserting that anarchists are against defending a revolution are either spreading a conscious lie or a product of deep ignorance.

Thus the question is not one of defending or not defending a revolution. The question is how do we defend it (and, another key question, what kind of revolution do we aim for).
Marxists urge us to "create a new state, for the first time to defend the rule of the majority over the minority." Anarchists reply that every state is based on the delegation of
power into the hands of a minority and so cannot be used to defend the rule of the majority over the minority. Rather, it would be the rule of those who claim to represent the
majority. The confusion between people power and party power is at the root of why Leninism is not revolutionary.

Mitchinson then quotes Lenin and Trotsky to defend his assertion:

    "The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not at all disagree with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to
    achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments resources and methods of state power against the exploiters." [Lenin]

    "Marxists are wholly in agreement with the anarchists in regard to the final goal: the liquidation of the state. Marxists are statist only to the extent that one cannot achieve
    the liquidation of the state simply by ignoring it." [Trotsky]

Of course, quoting Lenin or Trotsky when they make a false assertion does not turn lies into truth. As proven above, anarchists are well aware of the necessity of overthrowing
the state by revolution and defending that revolution against attempts to defeat it. To state otherwise is to misrepresent anarchist theory on this subject. Moreover, despite
Trotsky's claims, anarchists are aware that you do not destroy something by ignoring it. The real question is thus not whether to defend a revolution or whether to shatter the
state machine. The questions are, how do you shatter the state, what do you replace existing society with and how do you defend a revolution. To state otherwise is to build a
strawman -- unfortunately much of Lenin's "masterpiece" The State and Revolution is based on destroying this self-created strawman.

12. Would the "workers' state" really be different, as Mitchinson claims?

Mitchinson argues that from "the very beginning this would be like no previous state machine. From day one it would be in effect a semi-state." The question is, for anarchists,
whether this "semi-state" is marked by the delegation of power into the hands of a government. If so, then the "semi-state" is no such thing -- it is a state like any other and so
an instrument of minority rule. Yes, this minority may state it represents the majority but in practice it can only represent itself and claim that is what the majority desires.

Hence, for anarchists, "the essence of the state . . . [is] centralised power or to put it another way the coercive authority of which the state enjoys the monopoly, in that
organisation of violence know as 'government'; in the hierarchical despotism, juridical, police and military despotism that imposes laws on everyone." [Luigi Fabbri, Op. Cit., pp.
24-5] The so-called "semi-state" is nothing of the kind -- it is a centralised power in which a few govern the many. Therefore, the "workers' state" would be "workers" in name
only.

Mitchinson continues:

    "The task of all previous revolutions was to seize state power. From the experience of the Paris Commune of 1871 Marx and Engels concluded that it would not be possible for the
    workers to simply use the old state apparatus, they would instead have to replace it with an entirely new one, to serve the interests of the majority and lay the basis for a
    socialist society."

Needless to say, he forgets the key question -- who is to seize power. Is it the majority, directly, or a minority (the leaders of a party) who claim to represent the majority.
Leninists are clear, it is to be the party, not the working class as a whole. They confuse party power with class power. In the words of Lenin:

    "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 . . . [because] classes are usually . . . led by political parties. . . "

And:

    "To go so far in this matter 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, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]

However, what is truly stupid is confusing the rule by a minority with that of the majority managing their own affairs. The two things are different, they generate different social
relationships and to confuse the two is to lay the ground work for the rule by a bureaucratic elite, a dictatorship of state officials over the working class.

Now we come to the usual Leninist claims about Bolshevik theory:

    "To ensure that the workers maintain control over this state, Lenin argued for the election of all officials who should be held accountable and subject to recall, and paid no
    more than the wage of a skilled worker. All bureaucratic tasks should be rotated. There should be no special armed force standing apart from the people, and we would add, all
    political parties except fascists should be allowed to organise."

This is what Lenin, essentially, said he desired in The State and Revolution (Mitchinson misses out one key aspect, to which we will return later). Anarchists reply in three ways.

Firstly, we note that "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." [Murray Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 213] As an example, let us look at the recall
of "officials" (inspired by the Paris Commune). We find this in Bakunin's and Proudhon's work before it was applied by the Communards and praised by Marx. Bakunin in 1868 argued
for a "Revolutionary Communal Council" composed of "delegates . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1]
Proudhon's election manifesto of 1848 argued for "universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the binding mandate. Politicians balk at
it! Which means that in their eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is
not even democracy." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63] As can be seen, Lenin's recommendations were first proposed by anarchists.

Thus the positive aspects of Lenin's work are libertarian in nature, not Marxist as such. Indeed given how much time is spent on the Paris Commune (an essentially libertarian
revolt obviously inspired by Proudhon's ideas) his work is more libertarian than Marxist, as Bookchin makes clear. It is the non-libertarian aspects which helped to undermine the
anarchist elements of the work.

Secondly, Lenin does not mention, never mind discuss, the role of the Bolshevik Party would have in the new "semi-state." Indeed, the party is mentioned only in passing. That in
itself indicates the weakness of using The State and Revolution as a guide book to Leninist theory or practice. Given the importance of the role of the party in Lenin's previous
and latter works, it suggests that to quote The State and Revolution as proof of Leninism's democratic heart leaves much to be desired. And even The State and Revolution, in its
one serious reference to the Party, is ambiguous in the extreme:

    "By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to Socialism, of directing
    and organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the toiling and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie
    and against the bourgeoisie." [The Essential Lenin, p. 288]

Is it the vanguard or the proletariat which is "capable of assuming power"? The answer is important as a social revolution requires the fullest participation of the formerly
oppressed masses in the management of their own affairs. In the context of the rest of The State and Revolution it could be argued it is the proletariat. However, this cannot be
squared with Lenin's (or Trotsky's) post-October arguments and practices or the resolution of the Second World Congress of the Communist International which stated that "[e]very
class struggle is a political struggle. The goal of this struggle . . . is the conquest of political power. Political power cannot be seized, organised and operated except through
a political party." [cited by Duncan Hallas, The Comintern, p. 35] It is obvious that if the party rules, the working class does not. A socialist society cannot be built without
the participation, self-activity and self-management of the working class. Thus the question of who makes decisions and how they do so is essential -- if it is not the masses then
the slide into bureaucracy is inevitable.

Thus to quote The State and Revolution proves nothing for anarchists -- it does not discuss the key question of the party and so fails to present a clear picture of Leninist
politics and their immediate aims. As soon becomes clear if you look at Leninism in power -- i.e. what it actually did when it had the chance, to which we now turn.

Thirdly, we point to what he actually did in power. In this we follow Marx, who argued that we should judge people by what they do rather than what they say. We will concentrate on
the pre-Civil War (October 1917 to May 1918) period to indicate that this breaking of promises started before the horrors of Civil War can be claimed to have forced these decisions
onto the Bolsheviks.

Before the out-break of Civil War, the Bolsheviks had replaced election of "all officials" by appointment from above in many areas of life -- for example, they abolished the
election of officers in the Red Army and replaced workers' self-management in production with one-man management, both forms of democracy being substituted by appointed from above.
In addition, by the end of April, 1918, Lenin himself was arguing "[o]bedience, 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 -- our emphasis]
Moreover, the Soviet Constitution stated that "[e]very commissar [of the Council of People's Commissars -- i.e. the Soviet government] has a collegium (committee) of which he
is the president, and the members of which are appointed by the Council of People's Commissars." Appointment was the rule at the very heights of the state. The "election of all
officers" ("without exception" [Lenin, The State and Revolution, p. 302]) had ended by month six of the revolution even in Lenin's own writings -- and before the start of the Civil
War.

Lenin also argued in mid-April 1918 that the "socialist character of Soviet, i.e. proletarian, democracy" lies, in part, in "the people themselves determin [ing] the order and time
of elections." [The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, pp. 36-7] Given that "the government [had] continually postponed the new general elections to the Petrograd Soviet,
the term of which had ended in March 1918" because it "feared that the opposition parties would show gains" Lenin's comments seem hypocritical in the extreme. [Samuel Farber,
Before Stalinism, p. 22]

Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not stay true to Lenin's claim in The State and Revolution that "since the majority of the people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force'
is no longer necessary" as so "in place of a special repressive force, the whole population itself came on the scene." In this way the "state machine" would be "the armed masses of
workers who become transformed into a universal people's militia." [Op. Cit., p. 301, p. 320 and p. 347] Instead they created a political police force (the Cheka) and a standing
army (in which elections were a set aside by decree). These were special, professional, armed forces standing apart from the people and unaccountable to them. Indeed, they were
used to repress strikes and working class unrest. So much for Mitchinson's claim that "there should be no special armed force standing apart from the people" -- it did not last
three months (the Cheka was founded two months into the revolution, the Red Army was created in early 1918 and elections set aside by March of that year).

Lastly, the Bolsheviks banned newspapers from the start -- including other socialist papers. In addition, they did not allow other political tendencies to organise freely. The
repression started before the Civil War with the attack, by the Cheka, in April 1918 on the anarchist movements in Petrograd and Moscow. While repression obviously existed during
the Civil War, it is significant that it, in fact, started before it began. During the Civil War, the Bolsheviks repressed all political parties, including the Mensheviks even
though they "consistently pursued a policy of peaceable opposition to the Bolshevik regime, a policy conducted by strictly legitimate means" and "[i]ndividual Mensheviks who joined
organisations aiming at the overthrow of the Soviet Government were expelled from the Menshevik Party." [George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, pp. 318-9 and p. 332]
In fact, repression increased after the end of the Civil War -- a strange fact if it was that war which necessitated repression in the first place.

Moreover, Mitchinson fails to mention Lenin's argument that, like the Paris Commune, the workers' state would be based on a fusion of executive and administrative functions in the
hands of the workers' delegates. This is hardly surprising, as Lenin created an executive body (the Council of People's Commissars) immediately after the October Revolution. This
division of executive and administrative powers was written into the Soviet Constitution. So much for The State and Revolution -- its promises did not last a night.

Thus, his claims that the "semi-state" would not be like any other state are contradicted by the actual experience of Bolshevism in power. For anarchists, this comes as no surprise
as they are well aware that 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. Hence the
movement away from popular control -- it is the nature of centralised power to remove itself from control from below, control by the masses, particularly when all other focal
points of working class self-management have been abolished as being no longer required as we have a "semi-state."

Mitchinson seems to want us to look purely at Bolshevik theory and not its practice. It is exactly what supporters of capitalism desire us to do -- in theory, capitalism is based
on free agreement and free exchange between autonomous individuals but in practice it is a system of inequality which violates the autonomy of individuals and makes a mockery of
free agreement.

In a way, The State and Revolution laid out the foundations and sketched out the essential features of an alternative to Bolshevik power -- as noted, that system would be
essentially libertarian. Only the pro-Leninist tradition has used Lenin's work, almost to quiet their conscience, because Lenin, once in power, ignored it totally. Such is the
nature of the state -- as Kropotkin and all other anarchists have argued, there can be no such thing as a "revolutionary government." Conflict will inevitably arise between the
party which aims to control the revolution and the actions of the masses themselves. To resolve the conflict the state must eliminate the organs of workers self-activity which the
revolution creates otherwise the party cannot impose its decisions -- and this is what the Bolshevik state did, aided of course by the horrors of the civil war.

To state the obvious, to quote theory and not relate it to the practice of those who claim to follow that theory is a joke. It is little more than sophistry. If you look at the
actions of the Bolsheviks before and after the 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 Trotskyists desire.

13. Is the Marxist "worker's state" really the rule of one class over another?

Mitchinson argues that the "task of this state would be to develop the economy to eradicate want. Less need, means less need to govern society, less need for a state. Class society
and the state will begin to wither away as the government of people, the rule of one class over another, is replaced by the administration of things, the planned use of resources
to meet society's needs."

As Malatesta makes clear, this is pure sophistry:

    "Whoever has power over things has power over men; whoever governs production also governs the producers; who determines consumption is master over the consumer.

    "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]

Moreover, it is debatable whether Trotskyists really desire the rule of one class over another in the sense of working class over capitalist class. To quote Trotsky:

    "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural level of the masses and their
    heterogeneity. In the revolutionary vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised the aspirations of the masses to obtain their freedom. Without the confidence of the class
    in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power.

    "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard." [Stalinism and Bolshevism]

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." [Ibid.] That is, of course, true -- they are still organs of working class self-management (such as factory committees, workers councils, trade
unions, soldier committees) through which working people can still exercise their sovereignty. Little wonder Trotsky abolished independent unions, decreed the end of soldier
committees and urged one-man management and the militarisation of labour when in power. Such working class organs do conflict with the sovereign rule of the party and so have to be
abolished.

After being in power four years, Trotsky was arguing that 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, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 78]

This position follows naturally from Trotsky's comments that the party "crystallises" the "aspirations" of the masses. If the masses reject the party then, obviously,
their "cultural level" has fallen and so the party has the right, nay the duty, to impose its dictatorship over them. Similarly, the destruction of organs of working class
self-management can be justified because the vanguard has taken power -- which is exactly what Trotsky argued.

With regards to the Red Army and its elected officers, he stated in March 1918 that "the principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it has
been, in practice, abolished by decree" because the Bolshevik Party held power or, as he put it, "political power is in the hands of the same working class from whose ranks the
Army is recruited." Of course, power was actually held by the Bolshevik party, not the working class, but never fear:

    "Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system under which the government is headed by persons who have been directly elected by the Soviets of Workers',
    Peasants' and Soldiers' Deputies, 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, and, therefore, there cannot be any grounds for fearing the appointment of members of the commanding staff by the organs of
    the Soviet Power." [Work, Discipline, Order]

He made the same comments with regard the factory committees:

    "It would 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 of the collective will of the workers [a
    euphemism for the Party -- M.B.] and not at all in the form in which individual economic organisations are administered." [quoted by Maurice Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 66]

This point is reiterated in his essay, "Bolshevism and Stalinism" (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." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]

And, obviously, without party dictatorship the soviets would return to the "mud." In other words, the soviets are only important to attain party rule and if the two come into
conflict then Trotskyism provides the rule of the party with an ideological justification to eliminate soviet democracy. Lenin's and Trotsky's politics allowed them to argue that
if you let the proletariat have a say then the dictatorship of the proletariat could be in danger.

Thus, for Trotsky, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is independent of allowing the proletariat to manage their own affairs directly. However, without the means of manage their
own affairs directly, control their own lives, the proletariat are placed into the position of passive electors, who vote for parties who rule for and over them, in their own name.
Moreover, they face the constant danger of the "vanguard" nullifying even these decisions as "temporary vacillations." A fine liberation indeed.

Also, as libertarian socialist Maurice Brinton argues, none of the Bolshevik leaders "saw the proletarian nature of the Russian regime as primarily and crucially dependent on the
exercise of workers' power at the point of production (i.e. workers' management of production). It should have been obvious to them as Marxists that if the working class did not
hold economic power, its 'political' power would at best be insecure and would in fact degenerate." [Op. Cit., p. 42]

With direct working class sovereignty eroded by the Bolsheviks in the name of indirect, i.e. party, sovereignty it is hardly surprising that the dictatorship of the proletariat
becomes the dictatorship over the proletariat as Bakunin predicted. With the elimination of functional democracy and self-management, indirect democracy would not be able to
survive for long in the face of centralised, top-down decision making by the ruling party.

So hopeless was Trotsky's understanding of socialism and the nature of a working class social revolution that he even considered the Stalinist dictatorship to be an expression of
the "dictatorship of the proletariat." He argued that the "bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically in order to guard its social conquests with its own methods. The
anatomy of society is determined by its economic relations. So long as the forms of property that have been created by the October Revolution are not overthrown, the proletariat
remains the ruling class." [The Class Nature of the Soviet State]

Just to stress the point, according to Trotsky, under Stalinism the proletariat was the ruling class and that Stalin's dictatorship eliminated what remained (and it was not
much) of working class political influence in order "to guard its social conquests"! What social conquests could remain if the proletariat was under the heel of a totalitarian
dictatorship? Just one, state ownership of property -- precisely the means by which the (state) bureaucracy enforced its control over production and so the source of its economic
power (and privileges). To state the obvious, if the working class does not control the property it is claimed to own then someone else does. The economic relationship thus
generated is a hierarchical one, in which the working class is an oppressed class. Thus Trotsky identified the source of the bureaucracy's economic power with "socialism" -- no
wonder his analysis of Stalinism (and vision of socialism) proved so disastrous.

Trotsky argues that the "liberal-anarchist thought closes its eyes to the fact that the Bolshevik revolution, with all its repressions, meant an upheaval of social relations in
the interests of the masses, whereas Stalin's Thermidorian upheaval accompanies the reconstruction of Soviet society in the interest of a privileged minority." [Stalinism and
Bolshevism] However, social relations are just that, social and so between individuals and classes -- ownership of property cannot tell the whole story. What social relations did
Bolshevism bring about?

As far as the wage labour social relationship goes (and do not forget that is the defining feature of capitalism), the Bolsheviks opposed workers' self-management in favour of,
first, "control" over the capitalists and then one-man management. No change in social relationships there. Property relations did change in the sense that the state became the
owner of capital rather than individual capitalists, but the social relationship workers experienced during the working day and within society was identical. The state bureaucrat
replaced the capitalist.

As for politics, the Bolshevik revolution replaced government with government. Initially, it was an elected government and so it had the typical social relationships of
representative government. Later, it became a one party dictatorship -- a situation that did not change under Stalin. Thus the social relationships there, again, did not change.
The Bolshevik Party became the head of the government. That is all. This event also saw the reconstruction of Soviet Society in the interest of a privileged minority -- it is well
known that the Communists gave themselves the best rations, best premises and so on.

Thus the Bolshevik revolution did not change the social relations people faced and so Trotsky's comments are wishful thinking. The "interests of the masses" could not, and were
not, defended by the Bolshevik revolution as it did not change the relations of authority in a society -- the social relationships people experienced remain unchanged. Perhaps that
is why Lenin argued that the proletarian nature of the Russian regime was ensured by the nature of the ruling party? There could be no other basis for saying the Bolshevik state
was a workers' state. After all, nationalised property without workers' self-management does not change social relationships it just changes who is telling the workers what to do.

The important point to note is that Trotsky argued that the proletariat could be a ruling class when it had no political influence, never mind democracy, when subject to a
one-party state and bureaucratic dictatorship and when the social relations of the society were obviously capitalistic. No wonder he found it impossible to recognise that
dictatorship by the party did not equal dictatorship by the proletariat.

Therefore, the claim that Trotskyists see the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as "the rule of one class over another" is, as can be seen, a joke. Rather they see it as the rule
of the party over the rest of society, including the working class. Even when that party had become a bureaucratic nightmare, murdering millions and sending hundreds of thousands
to forced labour camps, Trotsky still argued that the "working class" was still the "ruling class." Not only that, his political perspective allowed him to justify the suppression
of workers' democracy in the name of the "rule" of the workers. For this reason, anarchists feel that the real utopians are the Leninists who believe that party rule equals class
rule and that centralised, hierarchical power in the hands of the few will not become a new form of class rule. History, we think, supports our politics on this issue (as in so
many others).

Mitchinson argues that "Anarchism's utopian calls to abolish the state overnight demonstrates neither the understanding of what the state is, nor the programme of action necessary
to achieve the goal it sets itself." However, as made clear, it is Marxism which is utopian, believing that rule by a party equals rule by a class and that a state machine can
be utilised by the majority of the population. As Kropotkin argued, Anarchists "maintain that the State organisation, having been the force to which minorities resorted for
establishing and organising their power over the masses, cannot be the force which will serve to destroy these privileges." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 170]

Luigi Fabbri sums up the difference well:

    "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." ["Anarchy and 'Scientific'
    Communism", in The Poverty of Statism, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]

Mitchinson moves on to the usual Marxist slander that as "a modern philosophy anarchism developed in the 19th century alongside the explosive growth of capitalism and its state
machine. It represented a rebellion by a section of the petty bourgeoisie at the loss of their position in society, driven to the wall by the growth of monopoly." We have refuted
this assertion in another appendix (Reply to errors and distortions in David McNally's pamphlet "Socialism from Below") and so will not do so here.

14. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist notion of "conquest of power"?

Mitchinson now decides to quote some anarchists to back up his spurious argument:

    "Their case was argued by Mikhail Bakunin and his supporters in the First International. At an anarchist conference in 1872 they argued 'The aspirations of the proletariat can
    have no other aim than the creation of an absolutely free economic organisation and federation based on work and equality and wholly independent of any political government,
    and such an organisation can only come into being through the spontaneous action of the proletariat itself...no political organisation can be anything but the organisation of
    rule in the interests of a class and to the detriment of the masses...the proletariat, should it seize power, would become a ruling, and exploiting, class...'"

To understand this passage it is necessary to place it in historical context. In 1872, the proletariat was a minority class within all nations bar the UK. In almost all nations,
the majority of the working class were either artisans or peasants (hence the reference to "the masses"). To urge that the proletariat seize power meant to advocate the class rule
of a minority of the working masses. Minority rule could be nothing else but the dictatorship of a minority over the majority (a dictatorship in the usual sense of the word), and
dictatorships always become exploitative of the general population.

Thus Mitchinson's "analysis" is ahistoric and, fundamentally, unscientific and a mockery of materialism.

Moreover, anarchists like Bakunin also made clear that the Marxist notion of "proletarian dictatorship" did not even mean that the proletariat as a whole would exercise power. In
his words:

    "What 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 million be
    members of the government? The entire nation will rule, but no one would be ruled. Then there will be no government, there will be no state; but if there is a state, there will
    also be those who are ruled, there will be slaves.

    "In the Marxists' theory this dilemma is resolved in a simple fashion. By popular government they mean government of the people by a small number of representatives elected by
    the people. So-called popular representatives and rulers of the state elected by the entire nation on the basis of universal suffrage -- the last word of the Marxists, as well
    as the democratic school -- is a lie behind which the despotism of a ruling minority is concealed, a lie all the more dangerous in that it represents itself as the expression
    of a sham popular will.

    "So . . . it always comes down to the same dismal result: government of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will
    consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon
    the whole workers' world from the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people." [Statism and
    Anarchy, p. 178]

Thus anarchists reject the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat for two reasons. Firstly, because it excluded the bulk of the working masses when it was first used by Marx
and Engels. Secondly, because in practice it would mean the dictatorship of the party over the proletariat. Needless to say, Mitchinson does not mention these points.

Mitchinson argues that "[a]lthough this sounds radical enough it nonetheless amounts to a recipe for inaction and disaster." And quotes Trotsky to explain why:

    "To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting
    a new class in power, thus enabling it to realise its own programme in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards
    insurrection without preparing for the conquest of power."

For anarchists the question immediately is, "power to who"? As is clear from the writings of Lenin and Trotsky they see the "conquest of power" not in terms of "putting a new class
in power" but, in fact, the representatives of that class, the vanguard party, into power. Anarchists, in contrast, argue that organs of working class self-management are the means
of creating and defending a social revolution as it is the only means that the mass of people can actually run their own lives and any power over and above these organs means
dictatorship over the working class, a new form of state and class power.

As Rudolf Rocker argues:

    "Let no one object that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' cannot be compared to run of the mill dictatorship because it is the dictatorship of a class. Dictatorship of a
    class cannot exist as such, for it ends up, in the last analysis, as being the dictatorship of a given party which arrogates to itself the right to speak for that class. Thus,
    the liberal bourgeoisie, in their fight against despotism, used to speak in the name of the 'people'. . .

    "We already know that a revolution cannot be made with rosewater. And we know, too, that the owning classes will never yield up their privileges spontaneously. On the day of
    victorious revolution the workers will have to impose their will on the present owners of the soil, of the subsoil and of the means of production, which cannot be done -- let
    us be clear on this -- without the workers taking the capital of society into their own hands, and, above all, without their having demolished the authoritarian structure which
    is, and will continue to be, the fortress keeping the masses of the people under dominion. Such an action is, without doubt, an act of liberation; a proclamation of social
    justice; the very essence of social revolution, which has nothing in common with the utterly bourgeois principle of dictatorship.

    "The fact that a large number of socialist parties have rallied to the idea of councils, which is the proper mark of libertarian socialist and revolutionary syndicalists, is a
    confession, recognition that the tack they have taken up until now has been the product of a falsification, a distortion, and that with the councils the labour movement must
    create for itself a single organ capable of carrying into effect the unmitigated socialism that the conscious proletariat longs for. On the other hand, it ought not to be
    forgotten that this abrupt conversion runs the risk of introducing many alien features into the councils concept, features, that is, with no relation to the original tasks of
    socialism, and which have to be eliminated because they pose a threat to the further development of the councils. These alien elements are able only to conceive things from the
    dictatorial viewpoint. It must be our task to face up to this risk and warn our class comrades against experiments which cannot bring the dawn of social emancipation any nearer
    -- which indeed, to the contrary, positively postpone it.

    "Consequently, our advice is as follows: Everything for the councils or soviets! No power above them! A slogan which at the same time will be that of the social revolutionary."
    [Anarchism and Sovietism]

Or, as the Bakunin influenced Jura Federation of the First International put it in 1874, "the dictatorship that we want is one which the insurgent masses exercise directly, without
intermediary of any committee or government." [quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 631] In other words, a situation in which the working masses defend their
freedom, their control over their own lives, from those who seek to replace it with minority rule.



15. What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?

Mitchinson argues that:

    "Anarchists see in the degeneration of the Soviet Union into a totalitarian dictatorship proof that Bakunin was right. In reality, only Leon Trotsky and Marxism have been able
    to explain the causes of that degeneration, finding its roots not in men's heads or personalities, but in the real life conditions of civil war, armies of foreign intervention,
    and the defeat of revolution in Europe."

Needless to say, anarchism explains the causes of the degeneration in a far more rich way than Mitchinson claims. The underlying assumption of his "critique" of anarchism is that
the politics of the Bolsheviks had no influence on the outcome of the revolution -- it was a product purely of objective forces. He also subscribes to the contradictory idea
that Bolshevik politics were essential for the success of that revolution. The facts of the matter is that people are faced with choices, choices that arise from the objective
conditions that they face. What decisions they make will be influenced by the ideas they hold -- they will not occur automatically, as if people were on auto-pilot -- and their
ideas are shaped by the social relationships they experience. Thus, someone placed into a position of power over others will act in certain ways, have a certain world view, which
would be alien to someone subject to egalitarian social relations.

So, obviously the "ideas in people's heads" matter, particularly during a revolution. Someone in favour of centralisation, centralised power and who equates party rule with class
rule (like Lenin and Trotsky), will act in ways (and create structures) totally different from someone who believes in decentralisation and federalism. In other words, political
ideas do matter in society. Nor do anarchists leave our analysis at this obvious fact -- as noted, we also argue that the types of organisation people create and work in shapes the
way they think and act. This is because specific kinds of organisation have specific authority relations and so generate specific social relationships. These obviously affect those
subject to them -- a centralised, hierarchical system will create authoritarian social relationships which shape those within it in totally different ways than a decentralised,
egalitarian system. That Mitchinson denies this obvious fact suggests he knows nothing of materialist philosophy.

Moreover, anarchists are aware of the problems facing the revolution. After all, anarchists were involved in that revolution and wrote some of the best works on that revolution
(for example, Voline's The Unknown Revolution, Arshinov's The History of the Makhnovist Movement and Maximov's The Guillotine at Work). However, they point to the obvious fact that
the politics of the Bolsheviks played a key role in how the revolution developed. While the terrible objective conditions may have shaped certain aspects of the actions of the
Bolsheviks it cannot be denied that the impulse for them were rooted in Bolshevik theory. After all, anarchist theory could not justify the suppression of the functional democracy
associated with the factory committees or the soldiers election of officers in the Red Army. Bolshevik theory could, and did.

Indeed, Trotsky was still claiming in 1937 that the "Bolshevik party achieved in the civil war the correct combination of military art and Marxist politics." [Stalinism and
Bolshevism] In other words, the Bolshevik policies implemented during the Civil War were the correct, Marxist, ones. Also, although Lenin described the NEP (New Economic Policy) of
1921 as a 'defeat', at no stage did he describe the suppression of soviet democracy and workers' control in such language. In other words, Bolshevik politics did play a role, a key
role, in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution and to deny it is to deny reality. In the words of Maurice Brinton:

    "[I]n relation to industrial policy there is a clear-cut and incontrovertible link between what happened under Lenin and Trotsky and the later practice of Stalinism. We know
    that many on the revolutionary left will find this statement hard to swallow. We are convinced however that any honest reading of the facts cannot but lead to this conclusion.
    The more one unearths about this period [1917-21], the more difficult it becomes to define -- or even see -- the 'gulf' allegedly separating what happened in Lenin's time
    from what happened later. Real knowledge of the facts 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." [Op.
    Cit., p. 84]

We should also point out that far from "Leon Trotsky and Marxism" explaining the degeneration of the Russian revolution, Trotsky could not understand that a "totalitarian
dictatorship" could be an expression of a new minority class and presented a decidedly false analysis of the Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state." That analysis led
numerous Trotskyists to support these dictatorships and oppose workers' revolts against them. In addition, Trotsky's own reservations were only really voiced after he had lost
power. Moreover, he never acknowledged how his own policies (such as the elimination of soldiers democracy, the militarisation of labour, etc.) played a key role in the rise of the
bureaucracy and Stalin.

Ultimately, every explanation of the degeneration of the Russian revolution by Trotskyists ends up as an appeal to "exception circumstances" -- they blame the rise of Stalinism on
the Civil War, to the "exceptional circumstances" created by that war. This can be faulted for two reasons.

Firstly, as Trotsky himself argued (with respect to the Spanish Anarchists) "did not the leaders of German social democracy invoke, in their time, the same excuse? Naturally, civil
war is not a peaceful and ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' . . . we do severely blame the anarchist theory, which seemed wholly suitable for times of peace, but had to
be dropped rapidly as soon as the 'exceptional circumstance' of the . . . revolution had begun." [Stalinism and Bolshevism] Needless to say, he did not apply his critique to his
own politics, which were also a form of the "exceptional circumstances" excuse. Given how quickly Bolshevik "principles" (as expressed in The State and Revolution) were dropped, we
can only assume that Bolshevik ideas are also suitable purely for "times of peace" as well.

Secondly, this "explanation" basically argues that, if the bourgeois did not defend their power in 1917, then Leninism would have worked out fine. As Mitchinson himself noted
above, belief that the bourgeois will just go away without a fight is "an infantile flight of fancy." As Lenin argued, "revolution . . ., in its development, would give rise to
exceptionally complicated circumstances" and "[r]evolution is the sharpest, most furious, desperate class war and civil war. Not a single great revolution in history has escaped
civil war. No one who does not live in a shell could imagine that civil war is conceivable without exceptionally complicated circumstances." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?,
p. 80 and p. 81]

If the Civil War did solely produce the degeneration of the Russian Revolution then all we can hope for is that in the next social revolution, the civil war Lenin argued was
inevitable is not as destructive as the Russian one. Hope is not much of a basis to build a "scientific" socialism -- but then again, neither is "fate" much of a basis to explain
the degeneration of the Russian Revolution but that is what Trotskyists do argue.

We discuss the Russian Revolution in more detail in the appendix on " What happened during the Russian Revolution?" of the FAQ and will not do so here. However, we can point out
the experience of the anarchist Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. Facing exactly the same objective conditions they encouraged soviet democracy,
held regular congresses of workers and peasants (the Bolsheviks tried to ban two of them), defended freedom of the press and of association and so on. If objective conditions
determined Bolshevik policies, why did they not also determine the policies of the Makhnovists? This practical example indicates that the usual Trotskyist explanation of the
degeneration of the Revolution is false.

Perhaps it is because of this, that it showed an alternative to Bolshevik politics existed and worked, that Trotskyists slander it? Trotsky himself asserted that the Makhnovists
were simply "kulaks" on horseback and that Makhno's "followers . . . [expressed] a militant anti-Semitism." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 80] We discuss the Makhnovist movement
in the appendix on "Why does the Makhnovist movement show there is an alternative to Bolshevism?" of the FAQ and there we refute claims that the Makhnovist movement was a kulak
(rich peasant) one. However, the charge of "militant anti-Semitism" is a serious one and so we will expose its falsehood here and well as in section 9 of the specified appendix.

The best source to refute claims of anti-Semitism is to quote the work of the Jewish anarchist Voline. He summarises the extensive evidence against such claims:

    "We could cover dozens of pages with extensive and irrefutable proofs of the falseness of these assertions. We could mention articles and proclamations by Makhno and the
    Council of Revolutionary Insurgents denouncing anti-Semitism. We could tell of spontaneous acts by Makhno himself and other insurgents against the slightest manifestation of
    the anti-Semitic spirit on the part of a few isolated and misguided unfortunates in the army and the population. . . One of the reasons for the execution of Grigoriev by the
    Makhnovists was his anti-Semitism and the immense pogrom he organised at Elizabethgrad. . . We could cite a whole series of similar facts, but we do not find it necessary . . .
    and will content ourselves with mentioning briefly the following essential facts:

    "1. A fairly important part in the Makhnovist movement was played by revolutionists of Jewish origin.

    "2. Several members of the Education and Propaganda Commission were Jewish.

    "3. Besides many Jewish combatants in various units of the army, there was a battery composed entirely of Jewish artillery men and a Jewish infantry unit.

    "4. Jewish colonies in the Ukraine furnished many volunteers to the Insurrectionary Army.

    "5. In general the Jewish population . . . took an active part in all the activities of the movement. The Jewish agricultural colonies . . . participated in the regional
    assemblies of workers, peasants and partisans; they sent their delegates to the regional Revolutionary Military Council. . ." [The Unknown Revolution, pp. 967-8]

Voline also quotes the eminent Jewish writer and historian M. Tcherikover about the question of the Makhnovists and anti-Semitism. The Jewish historian states "with certainty that,
on the whole, the behaviour of Makhno's army cannot be compared with that of the other armies which were operating in Russian during the events 1917-21 . . . It is undeniable that,
of all these armies, including the Red Army, the Makhnovists behaved best with regard the civil population in general and the Jewish population in particular . . . The proportion
of justified complaints against the Makhnovist army, in comparison with the others, is negligible. . . Do not speak of pogroms alleged to have been organised by Makhno himself.
That is a slander or an error. Nothing of the sort occurred. As for the Makhnovist Army . . . [n]ot once have I been able to prove the existence of a Makhnovist unit at the place a
pogrom against the Jews took place. Consequently, the pogroms in question could not have been the work of the Makhnovists." [quoted by Voline, Op. Cit., p. 699]

Given that the Red Army agreed to two pacts with the Makhnovists, we can only surmise, if Trotsky thought he was telling the truth, that Trotsky was a hypocrite. However, Trotsky
was either consciously lying or in error -- unfortunately the Trotskyist publishers of his words did not bother to note that his assertion was false. We are sorry for this slight
digression, but many Trotskyists take Trotsky's words at face value and repeat his slander -- unless we indicate their false nature they may not take our argument seriously.

Mitchinson continues by stating:

    "The position of anarchism only serves to endorse the bourgeois slander that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism."

This appeal against slander is ironic from someone who writes an article full of it. But, of course, it is bourgeois slander that he objects too -- Trotskyist slander (and
falsification) is fine.

The question of whether it is a "bourgeois slander" to argue (with supporting evidence) that "Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism" is an important one. Trotskyists often point out
that anarchist and libertarian Marxist critiques of Bolshevism sound similar to bourgeois ones and that anarchist accounts of Bolshevik crimes against the revolution and working
class give ammunition to the defenders of the status quo. However, this seems more like an attempt to stop critical analysis of the Russian Revolution than a serious political
position. Yes, the bourgeois do argue that Stalinism was inherent in Bolshevism -- however they do so to discredit all forms of socialism and radical social change. Anarchists, on
the other hand, analyse the revolution, see how the Bolsheviks acted and draw conclusions from the facts in order to push forward revolutionary thought, tactics and ideas. Just
because the conclusions are similar does not mean that they are invalid -- to label criticism of Bolshevism as "bourgeois slander" is nothing less than attempt to put people off
investigating the Russian Revolution.

There is are course essential differences between the "bourgeois slanders" against the Bolsheviks and the anarchist critique. The bourgeois slander is based on an opposition to the
revolution as such while the anarchist critique affirms it. The bourgeois slanders are not the result of the experiences of the working masses and revolutionaries subject to the
Bolshevik regime as the anarchist is. Similarly, the bourgeois slanders ignore the nature of capitalist society while the anarchist critique points out that the degeneration of the
Bolshevik state and party were a result of it not breaking with bourgeois ideas and organisational structures. Ultimately, it is not a case of "bourgeois slanders" but rather an
honest evaluation of the events of the Russian Revolution from a working class perspective.

To use an analogy, it is common place for the bourgeois press and ideologists to attack trade unions as being bureaucratic and unresponsive to the needs of their members. It is
also common place for members of those same trade unions to think exactly the same. Indeed, it is a common refrain of Trotskyists that the trade unions are bureaucratic and need to
be reformed in a more democratic fashion (indeed, Mitchinson calls for the unions to be "transformed" in his essay). Needless to say, the bourgeois comments are "correct" in the
sense that the trade unions do have a bureaucracy -- their reasons for stating that truth serve their interests and their solutions aid those interests and not those of the members
of the unions. Could a Trotskyist say that it was a "bourgeois slander" if the capitalist press point to the bureaucratic nature of the unions when their own papers do the same?

While it may be in the interests of the ruling elite and its apologists to scream about "bourgeois slanders", it hinders the process of working class self-emancipation to do so. As
intended, in all likelihood.



16. Did anarchists reject "the need for organisation in the shape of trade unions"?

Mitchinson now decides to "expose" anarchism:

    "In its early days, this modern anarchism found a certain support amongst the workers. However, through the course of struggle workers learned the need for organisation in the
    shape of the trade unions, and also for political organisation which led to the building of the mass workers parties."

To see the total nonsense of this claim we need only to turn to Marx. In his words, Bakunin thought that the "working class . . . must only organise themselves by trades-unions."
[Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 48] Bakunin himself 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." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139] Kropotkin argued that the "union [ syndicat] is
absolutely necessary. It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the direct struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into parliamentarism." [quoted by
Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 269]

So much for anarchism being against trade unions (as Mitchinson implies). As for mass workers parties, well, history proved Bakunin right -- such parties became corrupted,
bureaucratic and reformist. For Mitchinson the last 130 years have not existed.

He goes on to argue that "Bakunin and co. denounced participation in parliament, or the fight for reforms as a betrayal of the revolution, they 'rejected all political action not
having as its immediate and direct objective the triumph of the workers over capitalism, and as a consequence, the abolition of the state.'"

We must first note that the Bakunin quote presented does not support Mitchinson's assertions -- unless you think that reforms can only be won via participation in parliament
(something anarchists reject). The reason why Bakunin rejected "all political action" (i.e. bourgeois politics -- electioneering in other words) is not explained. We will now do
so.

Bakunin did denounce participation in parliament. History proved him right. Participation in parliament ensured the corruption of the Social Democratic Parties, the Greens and
a host of other radical and socialist organisations. Mitchinson seems to have forgotten the fights against reformism that continually occurred in the Social Democratic Parties
at end of the nineteenth and start of the twentieth centuries, a fight which ended with the defeat of the revolutionary wing and the decision to support the nation state in the
first world war. The actual experience of using parliament confirmed Bakunin's prediction 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]

What is not true, however, is that claim that Bakunin thought that "the fight for reforms [w]as a betrayal of the revolution." Bakunin was a firm believer in the importance of
struggles for reforms, but struggles of a specific kind -- namely struggles to win reforms which are based on the direct action by workers themselves:

    "What policy should the International [Workers' Association] follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .
    the International will give labour unrest in all countries an essentially economic character, with the aim of reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of the
    association of the working masses . . . It will [also] propagandise its principles . . . [Op. Cit., p. 109]

    "And indeed, as soon as a worker believes that the economic state of affairs can be radically transformed in the near future, he begins to fight, in association with his
    comrades, for the reduction of his working hours and for an increase in his salary. . . through practice and action . . . the progressive expansion and development of the
    economic struggle will bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies: the privileged classes, including the clergy, the bourgeois, and the nobility; and the State,
    which exists only to safeguard all the privileges of those classes." [Op. Cit., p. 103]

This argument for reforms by direct action and workers' associations was a basic point of agreement in those sections of the First International which supported Bakunin's ideas. In
the words of an anarchist member of the Jura Federation writing in 1875:

    "Instead of begging the State for a law compelling employers to make them work only so many hours, the trade associations directly impose this reform on the employers; in this
    way, instead of a legal text which remains a dead letter, a real economic change is effected by the direct initiative of the workers . . . if the workers devoted all their
    activity and energy to the organisation of their trades into societies of resistance, trade federations, local and regional, if, by meetings, lectures, study circles, papers
    and pamphlets, they kept up a permanent socialist and revolutionary agitation; if by linking practice to theory, they realised directly, without any bourgeois and governmental
    intervention, all immediately possible reforms, reforms advantageous not to a few workers but to the labouring mass -- certainly then the cause of labour would be better served
    than . . . legal agitation." [quoted by Caroline Cahm, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 226]

So much for Bakunin or the libertarian wing of the First International being against reforms or the struggle for reforms. Anarchists have not changed their minds on this issue.



17. Why do anarchists reject political activity?

After spreading falsehoods against Bakunin, Mitchinson states that:

    "Marxism fights for the conquest of political power by the working class and the building of a socialist society, under which the state will wither away.

    "Until then should workers refrain from political activity? Should they reject all reforms that might improve their existence? Nothing would please Blair or the bosses more."

It is ironic that Mitchinson mentions Blair. He is, after all, the leader of the Labour Party -- as mass workers party formed from the trade unions to use political action to gain
reforms within capitalism. The current state of Labour indicates well the comment that "in proportion as the socialists become a power in the present bourgeois society and State,
their socialism must die out." [Kropotkin, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 189] It is as if the history of Social Democracy (or even the German Greens) does not exist
for Mitchinson -- he points to Blair to refute anarchist analysis that Parliamentary politics corrupts the parties that use it! How strange, to ignore the results of socialists
actually using "political activity" (and we must stress that anarchists traditionally use the term "political action" to refer to electioneering, i.e. bourgeois politics, only).
Obviously reality is something which can be ignored when creating a political theory.

Needless to say, as noted above, anarchists do not "reject all reforms." We have quoted Bakunin, now we quote Kropotkin -- "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." He continued by arguing that 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]

Thus we do not think that political action (electioneering) equates to reforms nor even is the best means of winning reforms in the first place. Anarchists argue that by direct
action we can win reforms.

Mitchinson continues his diatribe:

    "Of course not, we must advocate the struggle for every gain no matter how minor, and use any and every field open to us. Only the dilettante can reject better wages or a
    health care system. Precisely through these struggles, and the struggles to transform the workers organisations the unions and the parties, we learn and become more powerful
    and bring closer the day when it will be possible to transform society for good."

As noted, anarchists do not reject reforms. Only a dilettante misrepresents the position of his enemies. And, as can be seen from the above quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin,
anarchists agree with Mitchinson's comments. Anarchists agree on the need to win reforms by direct action, which necessitates the creation of new forms of working class
organisation based on firm libertarian principles and tactics -- organisations like workers' councils, factory committees, community assemblies and so on.

However, when looking at the fields of struggle open to us, we evaluate them based on a materialist basis -- looking at the implications of the tactics in theory and how they
actually worked out in practice. Mitchinson obviously refuses to do this. Anarchists, on the other hand, base their politics on such an evaluation. For example, Bakunin would have
been aware of Proudhon's experiences in the French National Assembly during the 1848 revolution:

    "As soon as I set foot in the parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to be in touch with the masses; because I was absorbed by my legislative work, I entirely lost sight of current
    events . . . One must have lived in that isolator which is called the National Assembly to realise how the men who are most completely ignorant of the state of the country are
    almost always those who represent it . . . fear of the people is the sickness of all those who belong to authority; the people, for those in power, are the enemy." [Proudhon,
    quoted by Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible, p. 244]

Similarly, the practical experiences of a socialist elected into Parliament would be easy to predict -- they would be swamped by bourgeois politics, issues and activities.
Anarchism gained such socialists elected to parliament as Johann Most and Ferdinand Nieuwenhuis who soon released the correctness of the anarchist analysis. Thus actual experience
confirmed the soundness of anarchist politics. Mitchinson, on the other hand, has to deny history -- indeed, he fails to mention the history of Social Democracy at all in his
article.

Thus the claim that we should use "every field open to us" is idealistic nonsense, at total odds with any claim to use scientific techniques of analysis (i.e. to being a scientific
socialist) or a supporter of materialist philosophy. It means the rejection of historical analysis and the embrace of ahistoric wishful thinking.

Moreover, why do the workers need to "transform" their own organisations in the first place? Perhaps because they are bureaucratic organisations in which power is centralised
at the top, in a few hands? Why did this happen, if fighting for reforms by any suitable means (including electioneering) was their rationale? Perhaps because the wrong people
are in positions of power? But why are they the wrong people? Because they are right-wing, have reformist ideas, etc. Why do they have reformist ideas? Here Mitchinson must fall
silent, because obviously they have reformist ideas because the organisations and activities they are part of are reformist through and through. The tactics (using elections)
and organisational structure (centralisation of power) bred such ideas -- as Bakunin and other anarchists predicted. Mitchinson's politics cannot explain why this occurs, which
explains why Lenin was so surprised when German Social Democracy supported its ruling class during the First World War.



18. How do anarchists struggle for reforms under capitalism?

Mitchinson continues his distortion of anarchism by arguing:

    "Marxists fight for every reform, whilst at the same time explaining that while capitalism continues none of these advances are safe. Only socialism can really solve the
    problems of society."

As noted above, anarchists also fight for every reform possible -- but by direct action, by the strength of working people in their "natural organisations" and "social power" (to
use Bakunin's words). We also argue that reforms are always in danger -- that is why we need to have strong, direct action based organisations and self-reliance. If we leave it
to leaders to protect (never mind win reforms) we would not have them for long. Given that Labour governments have whittled previous reforms just as much as Conservative ones,
anarchists feel our strategy is the relevant one.

Mitchinson continues:

    "Our modern day anarchists, Reclaim the Streets and others, have no support in Britain amongst the organised workers."

Which is not true, as RTS and other anarchists do seek influence with the organised workers (and the unorganised ones, and the unemployed, etc.). They have invited rank-and-file
trade union activists to their demonstrations to speak, trade unionists are members of anarchist organisations, etc. Anarchists are at the forefront of supporting strikers,
particularly when their union betrays their struggle and does not support them. For example, during the Liverpool dockers strike RTS and the dockers formed a common front,
organised common demonstrations and so on. The trade unions did nothing to support the dockers, RTS and other anarchist groups did. That in itself indicates the weakness of
Mitchinson's claims. It would also be useful to point out that Trotskyists have little support amongst organised workers as well.

Moreover, anarchists do not seek to become part of the trade union bureaucracy and so their influence cannot be easily gauged.

After asserting these dubious "facts" about anarchist influence, he continues:

    "Some radicalised youth however are attracted to their 'direct action' stance. There is a vacuum left by the absence of a mass Labour youth organisation which, fighting for a
    socialist programme, could attract these young workers and students. With no lead being given by the tops of the unions, and Labour in government attacking young people, that
    vacuum can be temporarily and partly filled by groups like Reclaim the Streets."

Needless to say, Mitchinson does not pose the question why the Labour government is attacking "young people" (and numerous other sections of the working class). Why has the Labour
Party, a mass workers party which uses elections to gain reforms, been attacking (as it has always done, we must note) its support? If its because the leaders are "right-wing" then
why have the membership supported them? Why have the "right-wing" gained such influence? Also, why is there no "mass Labour youth organisation"? And why should "young people" join
an organisation which is part of the party which is attacking them? And why are the "tops of the unions" not giving a "lead"? Perhaps because its not in their interests to do so?
Because they hate direct action and radical workers as much as the bosses?

Mitchinson's "analysis" is question begging in the extreme.

He continues:

    "What action do they propose though? In their press statement (2/5/00) they explain, 'We were not protesting. Under the shadow of an irrelevant parliament we were planting the
    seeds of a society where ordinary people are in control of their land, their resources, their food and their decision making. The garden symbolised an urge to be self-reliant
    rather than dependent on capitalism.'"

Firstly, we should point out that having access to land is a key way for workers to be independent of capitalism. Perhaps Mitchinson forgets Marx's discussion of the colonies in
chapter 33 of Capital? In it Marx discusses how access to land allowed immigrants to America and Australia to reject wage labour (i.e. capitalism) by providing them with the means
to survive without selling themselves on the labour market to survive. The state had to be used to enforce the laws of supply and demand by restricting access to the land. Or,
perhaps, he had forgotten Marx's discussion in chapter 27 of Capital of the role of enclosures in creating a dispossessed mass of people who were forced, by necessity, to become
the first generation of wage slaves? Either way, access to the land was (and still is, in many countries) a means of being independent of capitalism -- and one which the state acts
to destroy.

Secondly, the garden was a symbol of a communist society, not an expression of the type of society RTS and other anarchists desire. So, as a symbol of a anti-capitalist vision, the
garden is a good one given the history of state violence used to separate working people from the land and propel them into the labour market. However, it is only a symbol and not,
obviously, to be taken as an example of the future society RTS or other anarchists desire. Only someone lacking in imagination could confuse a symbol with a vision -- as the press
release states it "celebrated the possibility of a world that encourages co-operation and sharing rather than one which rewards greed, individualism and competition."

Thirdly, as their press release states, "Guerrilla Gardening is not a protest; by its very nature it is a creative peaceful celebration of the growing global anticapitalist
movement." Mitchinson attacks the action for being something it was never intended to be.

He "analyses" the RTS press release:

    "The fact that parliament appears powerless to prevent job losses or the destruction of the environment, only demonstrates that it serves the interests of capitalism."

Very true, as Kropotkin argued 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] He argues elsewhere that "small groups of men [and women] were imbued with the . . . spirit of revolt. They also rebelled -- sometimes with the hope of partial success; for
example winning a strike and of obtaining bread for their children . . . Without the menace contained in such revolts, no serious concession has ever been wrung by the people from
governing classes." [Evolution and Environment, p. 103]

Mitchinson seems to agree:

    "However, under pressure from below it is possible to introduce reforms through parliament that are in the interests of ordinary people."

Thus reforms are possible, but only if we rely on ourselves, organise pressure from below and use direct action to force parliament to act (if that is required). Which is what
anarchists have always argued. Without anti-parliamentary action, parliament will ignore the population. That is what anarchists have always argued -- we have to reply on our
own organisations, solidarity and direct action to change things for the better. Faced with such a movement, parliament would introduce reforms regardless of who was a member
of it. Without such a movement, you end up with Tony Blair. Thus Mitchinson is confused -- by his own logic, the anarchists are correct, we have to work outside parliament and
electioneering in order to be effective.

He continues:

    "It is no use declaring parliament to be irrelevant, and turning your back on it when the majority do not agree, and still look to government to make their lives better. This
    is the mirror image of the sects attitude to the Labour Party. Any and every avenue which can be used to improve our lives must be used."

How do you change the opinion of the majority? By changing your position to match theirs? Of course not. You change their position by argument and proving that direct action is
more effective in making their lives better than looking to government. Mitchinson would have a fit if someone argued "it is no use declaring capitalism to be wrong and fighting
against it when the majority do not agree and still look to it to make their lives better." If the majority do not agree with you, then you try and change their opinion -- you do
not accept that opinion and hope it goes away by itself!

Mitchinson seems to be following Lenin when he argued "[y]ou must not sink to the level of the masses . . . You must tell them the bitter truth. You are duty bound to call their
bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are -- prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness . . . of
all the toiling masses." [Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, p. 41] Obviously, you cannot tell workers the bitter truth and at the same time follow their prejudices. In
practice, if you follow their prejudices you cannot help but encourage faith in parliament, social democratic parties, leaders and so on. Progress is achieved by discussing issues
with people, not ducking the question of political issues in favour of saying what the majority want to hear (which is what the capitalist media and education system encourage them
to believe in the first place). As a means of encouraging revolutionary thought it is doomed to failure.

Also, just to stress the point, any and every avenue which can be used to improve our lives must be used but only if it actually is revolutionary and does not place obstacles in
the process of social change. Parliamentary action has been proven time and time again to be a false way for radical change -- it only ends up turning radicals into supporters of
the status quo. It makes as much sense as arguing that any and every avenue must be used to cure a disease, including those which give you a new disease in its place.



19. How does Mitchinson distorts the use of the term "Self-reliance"?

Mitchinson argues that:

    "In any case this 'self-reliance' is no alternative. Self-reliance won't get electricity into your house, educate your children or treat you when you are ill."

No anarchist and no one in RTS ever claimed it would. We use the term "self-reliance" in a totally different way -- as anyone familiar with anarchist or RTS theory would know.
We use it to describe individuals who think for themselves, question authority, act for themselves and do not follow leaders. No anarchist uses the term to describe some sort of
peasant life-style. But then why let facts get in the way of a nice diatribe?

He continues:

    "We have the resources to cater for all of society's needs, the only problem is that we do not own them."

Actually, the real problem is that we do not control them. The examples of Nationalised industries and the Soviet Union should make this clear. In theory, they were both owned by
their populations but, in practice, they were effectively owned by those who managed them -- state bureaucrats and managers. They were not used to cater for our needs, but rather
the needs of those who controlled them. For this reason anarchists argue that common ownership without workers' self-management in the workplace and community would be little more
than state capitalism (wage labour would still exist, but the state would replace the boss).

He continues with his distortion of the concept of "self-reliance":

    "Individualism (self-reliance) cannot be an alternative to socialism, where all the resources of society are at all of our disposal, and equally we all contribute what we can
    to society."

Firstly, anarchists are socialists and mostly seek a (libertarian) communist society where the resources of the world are at our disposal.

Secondly, self-reliance has little to do with "individualism" -- it has a lot to do with individuality, however. The difference is important.

Thirdly, in a part of the press release strangely unquoted by Mitchinson, RTS argue that their action "celebrated the possibility of a world that encourages co-operation and
sharing rather than one which rewards greed, individualism and competition." RTS are well aware that self-reliance does not equal individualism and they are very clear that oppose
individualism and desire co-operation. Given that Mitchinson quotes from their press release, he must know this and yet he asserts the opposite.

Mitchinson seems to equate self-reliance with "individualism" and so, presumably, capitalism. However, capitalists do not want self-reliant workers, they want order takers, people
who will not question their authority. As David Noble points out, after an experiment in workers' control General Electric replaces it with a the regime that was "designed to
'break' the pilots of their new found 'habits' of self-reliance, self-discipline, and self-respect." [ Forces of Production, p. 307]

Capitalists know the danger of self-reliant people. Self-reliant people question authority, think for themselves, do not follow leaders and bring these abilities into any groups
they join. Thus self-reliance is not purely an individual thing, it also refers to groups and classes. Anarchists desire to see a self-reliant working class -- a class which
makes its own decisions and does not follow leaders. Thus, for anarchists, self-reliance refers to both individuals and groups (just as self-management and self-liberation does).
Needless to say, for those in authority or those seeking authority self-reliance is an evil thing which must be combated. Hence Mitchinson's diatribe -- it is the cry of the
would-be leader who is afraid his followers will not respect his authority.



20. Is anarchism an example of "Philosophical idealism"?

He turns to the May Day demonstration:

    "Guerrilla gardening and its related varieties that have sprung up in various places, is nothing more than an offshoot of the old utopian idea of changing society by example."

Actually, it was a specific demonstration to encourage people to get involved in collective action, to have a good time and challenge authority and the status quo. It was an
attempt to change society by example only in the sense that it would encourage others to act, to challenge the status quo and get involved in collective action. If Mitchinson was
consistent he would have to oppose every demonstration that occurred before the final insurrection that created the "workers' state" -- a demonstration is, by its very nature, an
example to others of what is possible, an example of our collective strength and our desire for change. You may be critical of the nature of the guerrilla gardening action (and
many anarchists are), but you cannot misrepresent its nature as Mitchinson does and be expected to be taken seriously.

He continues:

    "The roots of this scheme lie in idealist philosophy. Philosophical idealism refers to the notion that people's actions are a consequence of their thoughts, that ideas and not
    our conditions of life determine our outlook. When, through a long process of accumulation, we change people's minds, then they will live differently, capitalism will simply be
    redundant. The capitalist class themselves will presumably sit idly by and watch their system fall apart."

Given that the "anti-capitalist" demonstrations have meet extensive state violence, it is clear that those involved are well aware that capitalist class will not just watch its
power disappear.

Also, calling RTS's action "idealist philosophy" is quite ironic for someone who seems intent in ignoring the history of Social Democracy and dismisses attempts to analyse the
Bolsheviks in power as "bourgeois slanders." However, Mitchinson in his diatribe forgets one of the basic arguments of materialism -- namely that ideas themselves are part of
the material world and so influence society and how it develops. He rejects the notion that peoples thoughts and ideas determine their actions. He obviously thinks that people
operate on auto-pilot, not thinking about their actions. However, in reality, what people do is dependent on their thoughts -- they think about their actions and what motivates
them influences their activity. If thoughts did not determine people's actions then Mitchinson would not have spent so much time writing this article!

Thus Mitchinson is well aware of the importance of ideas in social change, at least implicitly. Indeed, he argues for the need for a "mass Labour youth organisation which, fighting
for a socialist programme, could attract these young workers and students." To state the obvious, a socialist programme is a means to "change people's minds" and present the
possibility of creating a new society. Does he seriously think a socialist revolution is possible without changing people's minds, getting them to desire a socialist society?

Moreover, if he had read Bakunin he would be aware that anarchists consider the class struggle as the way to change people's ideas. As Bakunin argued:

    "the germs of [socialist thought] . . . [are to] be found in the instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . . is to make the worker fully aware of what he wants, to unjam
    within him a stream of thought corresponding to his instinct . . . What impedes the swifter development of this salutary though among the working masses? Their ignorance to
    be sure, that is, for the most part the political and religious prejudices with which self-interested classes still try to obscure their conscious and their natural instinct.
    How can we dispel this ignorance and destroy these harmful prejudices? By education and propaganda? . . . they are insufficient . . . [and] who will conduct this propaganda? .
    . . [The] workers' world . . . is left with but a single path, that of emancipation through practical action . . . It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the
    bosses. It means trade-unions, organisation . . . To deliver [the worker] from that ignorance [of reactionary ideas], the International relies on collective experience he gains
    in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses . . . As soon as he begins to take an active part in this wholly material
    struggle, . . . Socialism replaces religion in his mind. . . through practice and collective experience . . . the progressive and development of the economic struggle will
    bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies . . . The workers thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily . . . recognise himself to be a revolutionary socialist,
    and he will act as one." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 102-3]

Thus anarchists are aware that experience determines thought but we are also aware that thought is essential for action. We recognise the importance of ideas in the class struggle
but we also realise that the ideas people have change as a result of that struggle. To state otherwise is to misrepresent anarchist thought.



21. How is Mitchinson's critique self-contradictory?

He continues his distortion:

    "Whilst believing in a revolutionary struggle to overthrow capitalism, anarchists argue that it must be replaced by...nothing."

This is ironic for quite a few reasons. Firstly, above Mitchinson claimed that anarchists did not aim to overthrow capitalism, just the state. Now he is claiming we do believe
in overthrowing capitalism. Secondly, he quoted Trotsky saying that anarchists just ignore the state. Now Mitchinson states we aim to overthrow the capitalism via revolutionary
struggle. How do you overthrow something via revolutionary struggle by ignoring it? His critique is not even internally consistent.

Moreover, he is well aware what anarchists want to replace capitalism with, after all he quotes an anarchist conference which stated that they aimed for "the creation of an
absolutely free economic organisation and federation based on work and equality"! Bakunin was always arguing that the International Workers Association should become "an earnest
organisation of workers associations from all countries, capable of replacing this departing world of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 110] In other words, the
"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association of workers, first in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and
finally in a great federation, international and universal." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206] Even Engels acknowledged that the anarchists aimed to "dispose all the
authorities, abolish the state and replace it with the organisation of the International." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 72] Anyone with even a basic knowledge of anarchist
theory would know this. And given that Mitchinson stated that "Marx saw a future society without a state" as well and that he quotes Trotsky as arguing "Marxists are wholly in
agreement with the anarchists in regard to the final goal: the liquidation of the state" we can only assume that Marxists also aim at replacing it, eventually, when the state
"withers away," with "nothing."

This sentence, more than any other, shows the level which some Marxists will sink to when discussing anarchism. It shows that the standard Marxist critique of anarchism is little
more than an inconsistent collection of lies, distortion and misrepresentation. Mitchinson not only contradicts his ideological gurus, he even contradicts himself! That is truly
impressive.



22. How did Trotsky make the trains run on time?

Mitchinson asks:

    "Yet with no central apparatus, no organisation, how would the trains run on time, how could organ transplants be organised, how could the world's resources be channelled into
    permanently overcoming famine."

Firstly, we must note the usual fallacy -- being opposed to a "central apparatus" does not imply "no organisation." Instead of centralised organisation, anarchists propose federal
organisations in which co-ordination is achieved by collective decision making from the bottom up. In other words, rather than delegate power into the hands of "leaders", an
anarchist organisation leaves power at the bottom and co-ordination results from collective agreements that reflect the needs of those directly affected by them. Thus a federal
organisation co-ordinates activities but in a bottom-up fashion rather than top-down, as in a centralised body.

Secondly, needless to say, anarchists are quite clear on who would make the trains run on time -- the railway workers. Anarchists are firm supporters of workers' self-management.
Anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchist theory would know that. Moreover, the experience of workers' self-management of the railways by the anarchist union the CNT
during the Spanish Revolution indicates that such anarchism can, and does, ensure that the trains run on time In contrast, the experience of Russia -- when the Bolsheviks did
create a "central apparatus" -- proved a total failure. It is quite appropriate that Mitchinson uses the "trains running on time" example, after all it is what apologists for
Italian fascism praised Mussolini for! This is because Trotsky (when he ran the railways) did so in a way that Mussolini would have been proud of -- he subjected the railway
workers to military discipline:

    "Due to the Civil War -- and to other factors less often mentioned, such as the attitude of the railway workers to the 'new' regime -- the Russian railways had virtually
    ceased to function. Trotsky, Commissar for Transport, was granted wide emergency powers [in August 1920] to try out his theories of 'militarisation of labour.' He started out
    placing the railwaymen and the personnel of the repair workshops under martial law. When the railwaymen's trade union objected, he summarily ousted its leaders and, with the
    full support and endorsement of the Party leadership, 'appointed others willing to do his bidding. He repeated the procedure in other unions of transport workers.'" [Maurice
    Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 67]

He ruled the "central apparatus" he created, called the Tsektran, "along strict military and bureaucratic lines." [Ibid.] The trains did start moving again, of course. The question
is -- do workers manage their own activity or does some other group. Trotsky and Lenin in power decided for the latter -- and built the "centralised apparatus" required to ensure
that result. Needless to say, Trotsky did not justify his militarisation of work in terms of necessary evils resulting from appalling objective conditions. Rather he saw it as a
matter of "principle":

    "The working class cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers."

    "The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite unquestionable . . . the only solution to economic difficulties from the point of view of both principle
    and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power . . . and to introduce strict order into the work of its
    registration, mobilisation and utilisation."

    "The introduction of compulsory labour service is unthinkable without the application . . . of the methods of militarisation of labour." [quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 61
    and p. 66]

Why "principle"? Perhaps because Marx and Engels had stated in The Communist Manifesto that one of the measures required during the revolution was the "[e] stablishment of
industrial armies"? [Selected Writings, p. 53]

Moreover, the experience of "central apparatus" in Bolshevik Russia helped create famine -- the vast bureaucracy spawned by the "workers' state" could not handle the information a
centralised distribution system required. Food rotted in trains waiting for bureaucrats to "channel" resources (and, needless to say, the bureaucrats never went hungry).



23. Can centralised planning meet the needs of the whole of society?

Our Marxist friend then quotes Maybe:

    "The radical social movements that are increasingly coming together don't want to seize power but to dissolve it. They are dreaming up many autonomous alternative forms of
    social organisation, forms that are directly linked to the specific needs of locality. What might be an alternative to capitalism for people living currently in a housing
    estate in Croydon is completely different to what might be suitable for the inhabitants of the slums of Delhi."

He comments on these very sensible words:

    "It cannot be of no concern to us what form a new society will take in different countries or even different regions. The economic power we have created over centuries can and
    must be used in a planned, rational way to eradicate hunger, disease and illiteracy. It must be used in the interests of the whole of society."

Obviously, the needs of actual people, what sort of society they want, is irrelevant to Marxism. Also ignored is the fact that different cultures will have different visions of
what a free society will be like. Thus, for Mitchinson, everyone, everywhere, will be subject to the same form of society -- "in the interests of society." However, as Bakunin
argued, the state "is an arbitrary creature in whose breast all the positive, living, individual or local interests of the people clash, destroy and absorb each other into the
abstraction known as the common interest, the public good or the public welfare , and where all real wills are dissolved into the other abstraction that bears the name of the will
of the people. It follows that this alleged will of the people is never anything but the sacrifice and dissolution of all the real wants of the population, just as this so-called
public good is nothing but the sacrifice of their interests." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 265-6]

The different needs of different areas and regions must be the starting point of any social reconstruction, the basis on which we create specific programmes to improve our
societies, eco-systems and world. If we do not recognise the diversity inherent in a world of billions of people, millions of eco-systems, thousands of cultures, hundreds of
regions then we cannot use the resources of society to improve our lives. Instead we would have uniform plan imposed on everything which, by its very nature, cannot take into
accounts the real needs of those who make up "the whole of society." In other words, the resources of the world must not be used by an abstraction claiming to act "in the interests
of society" but rather by the people who actually make up society themselves -- if we do that we ensure that their interests are meet directly as they manage their own affairs and
that their use reflects the specific requirements of specific people and eco-systems and not some abstraction called "the interests of society" which, by its centralised nature,
would sacrifice those interests.

Of course, it seems somewhat strange that Mitchinson thinks that people in, say, New Delhi or Croyden, will not seek to eradicate hunger, disease and illiteracy as they see fit,
co-operating with others as and when they need to and creating the federative organisations required to do so. The need to share experiences and resources does not conflict with
the different areas experimenting in different ways, expressing themselves in ways which suit their particular needs and difficulties. As any ecologist could tell you, different
eco-systems need different forms of care. The same with communities -- Mitchinson would drown local needs in the name of an artificial construct.

He continues:

    "That can only be achieved by the democratic planning of society where the power at our fingertips could be used with due respect for the future of the planet, the conservation
    of it's resources, our own working conditions, and living standards. Whether we like it or not, growing a few carrots on empty plots of land will not eradicate hunger and
    famine."

How can "democratic planning" of the whole "of society" take into account the needs of specific localities, eco-systems, communities? It cannot. Respect for the future of our
planet means respecting the fundamental law of nature -- namely that conformity is death. Diversity is the law of life -- which means that a future socialist society must be
libertarian, organised from the bottom up, based on local self-management and a respect for diversity. Such a federal structures does not preclude co-ordinated activity (or the
creation of democratic plans) -- the reverse in fact, as federalism exists to allow co-ordination -- but instead of being imposed by a few "leaders" as in a centralised system, it
is the product of local needs and so reflective of the needs of real people and eco-systems.

As for his comment about "due respect of the future of the planet" is obviously inspired by "the youth" being concerned about ecological issues. However, Leninism's desire for
centralised states and planning excludes an ecological perspective by definition. As Bakunin argued:

    "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." [Op. Cit., p. 240]

Diversity is the basis of any eco-system. Centralism cannot, as Bakunin makes clear, embrace it.

Needless to say, Mitchinson's comments about carrots is pure stupidity and an insult to the intelligence of his audience.



24. Is technology neutral?

Mitchinson goes on:

    "We have the power to do just that, but only if we combine new technology, industry and the talents and active participation of millions."

Needless to say, he fails to indicate how the millions can participate in a "centralised apparatus" beyond electing their "leaders." Which indicates the fallacy of Marxism -- it
claims to desire a society based on the participation of everyone yet favours a form of organisation -- centralisation -- that precludes that participation.

In addition, he fails to note that technology and industry have been developed by capitalists to enhance their own power. As we argued in section D.10, technology cannot be viewed
in isolation from the class struggle. This means that industry and technology was not developed to allow the active participation of millions. The first act of any revolution will
be seizing of the means of life -- including industry and technology -- by those who use it and, from that moment on, their radical transformation into appropriate technology and
industry, based on the needs of the workers, the community and the planet. Mitchinson obvious shares the common Marxist failing of believing technology and industry is neutral. In
this he follows Lenin. As S.A. Smith correctly summarises:

    "Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the basis of large-scale industry as developed by capitalism, with its specific types of productivity and social
    organisation of labour. Thus for him, capitalist methods of labour-discipline or one-man management were not necessarily incompatible with socialism. Indeed, he went so far as
    to consider them to be inherently progressive, failing to recognise that such methods undermined workers' initiative at the point of production. This was because Lenin believed
    that the transition to socialism was guaranteed, ultimately, not by the self-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state power. . . There is no doubt that
    Lenin did conceive proletarian power in terms of the central state and lacked a conception of localising such power at the point of production." [Red Petrograd, pp. 261-2]

The Russian workers, unsurprisingly, had a different perspective:

    "Implicit in the movement for workers' control was a belief that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In their battle to democratise the factory, in their
    emphasis on the importance of collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming the work situation, the factory committees had become aware -- in a partial and
    groping way, to be sure -- 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 . . . inscribed within their practice was a distinctive
    vision of socialism, central to which was workplace democracy." [Op. Cit., p. 261]

The movement for workers' control was undermined and finally replaced by one-man management by the kind of "central apparatus" Mitchinson urges us to build (see M. Brinton's
classic work The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for more details). Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

He goes on:

    "The economic power we have created can be compared to the destructive force of lightning, untamed and anarchic under the market, yet organised into cables and wires
    electricity transforms our lives. Industry is not the enemy, nor are machines. The state is, but it is a symptom not the disease. It is capitalism and its ownership of the
    economy, its stewardship of society that we have to replace."

However, unlike electricity, "economic power" requires people to operate it. The question is not whether "machines" are the enemy (often they are, as machines are used by
capitalists to weaken the power of workers and control them). The question is whether the future society we aim at is one based on workers' and community self-management or
whether it is based on an authoritarian system of delegated power. It is clear that Marxists like Mitchinson desire the latter -- indeed, as is clear from his diatribe, he cannot
comprehend an alternative to hierarchical organisation.

Given that one of the things capitalism and the state have in common is a hierarchical, top-down structure, it is clear that any revolutionary movement must fight both -- at the
same time.



25. Do anarchists ignore the "strength of the working class"?

Mitchinson argues that:

    "The task of our time is to combine the strength and experience of the working class and its mighty organisations with the power and energy of the youth internationally, on
    the basis of a clear understanding of what capitalism is, what the state is, and a programme for changing society. That requires a combination of theory and action. In that
    combination lies the strength of Marxism."

The first question is surely what "mighty organisations" of the working class is he talking about. Is it the Labour Party? Or is it the trade unions? Probably the latter -- if
so, the question is how effective have these "mighty organisations" been recently? The answer must, surely, be "not very." Why is that? In union there is strength, as anarchists
have long been aware. Why has this strength been so lacking? Simply because the unions are centralised, bureaucratic and run from the top down. They have placed numerous barriers
in front of their members when they have taken militant action. That is why anarchists urge workers to form rank-and-file controlled organisations to manage their own struggles
and take back the power they have delegated to their so-called leaders. Only in this way, by building truly revolutionary organisations like workers' councils (soviets), factory
committees, community assemblies and so on can they really create a "mighty" force. In other words, anarchists are well aware of the strength of working class people and their
power to change society -- indeed, as proven above, anarchism is based on that awareness and organise appropriately!

The second question is surely to ask whether Mitchinson is aware that Reclaim the Streets have been building links with rank and file trade union militants for years -- long before
Mitchinson decided to enlighten them with "the strength of Marxism." In other words, "the strength of Marxism" seems to rest in telling radical working class people to do what they
have already doing! Such strength is truly amazing and must explain the prominent role Leninists have had in the numerous anti-capitalist demonstrations and organisations recently.

Needless to say, anarchism provides "a clear understanding of what capitalism is, what the state is, and a programme for changing society. That requires a combination of theory and
action." This has been proven above when we corrected Mitchinson's numerous errors regarding anarchist theory. Moreover, as far as combining theory and action goes, it is clear
that anarchism has been doing that of late, not Marxism. While anarchists have been at the forefront of the anti-capitalist demonstrations, working with others as equals, Marxists
have been noticeable by their absence. Combining theory and practice, non-hierarchically organised direct action closed down the WTO and presented a clear message to the oppressed
around the world -- resistance is fertile. What have Marxists achieved? Apparently producing articles such as these, distorting the politics and activities of those who actually
are changing the world rather than just interpreting it. That they cannot produce an honest critique of anarchism indicates the uselessness of their politics.



26. What does Mitchinson's article tell about the nature of Trotskyism?

He finishes his diatribe as follows:

    "If you want to fight against capitalism, do so fully armed with a socialist programme and perspective. Join with us in the struggle for the socialist transformation of the
    planet."

It is clear that to be "fully armed with a socialist programme" means to critique that which you know nothing about, spread slanders and lie about what your opponents actually
think. There is much to be critical of in the recent anti-capitalist demonstrations and the various groups that have helped organise and take part in them. Anarchists have been
the first to point these out. However, we have a lot to learn from them as well -- they are struggling against capitalism and, as Kropotkin argues, "Anarchism . . . originated in
everyday struggles" and "the Anarchist movement was renewed each time it received an impression from some great practical lesson: it derived its origin from the teachings of life
itself." [Evolution and Environment, p. 58 and p. 57]

Thus we must critique these movements honestly and as equals -- Mitchinson, as can be seen, does neither. He slanders those involved and dismisses out of hand their experiences and
the reasons that have brought them to struggle in a specific way against the dominant society. In this he follows Lenin, who argued in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder
that western revolutionaries ignore their own experiences in their own -- and similar -- countries and instead follow the "lessons" of experiences gained in a near pre-capitalist,
absolutist state. The stupidity of such an approach is clear.

Mitchinson presents those in struggle with the ultimatum "subscribe to our platform or be denounced." Little wonder that Leninists are non-existent in the groups that have taken
part and organised the anti-capitalist demonstrations -- not willing to learn from those involved in the class struggle, all they can do is act as petty sectarians. Sectarians
expect working class people to relate to their predetermined political positions, whereas revolutionaries apply our politics to the conditions we face as members of the working
class. For Leninists revolutionary consciousness is not generated by working class self-activity, but is embodied in the party. The important issues facing the working class -- and
how to fight -- are to be determined not by the workers ourselves, but by the leadership of the party, who are the "vanguard of the working class". Hence Mitchinson's dismissal
(in a particularly dishonest manner, we must stress) of those involved in struggle and their experiences. True "revolution" obviously lies in the unchanging ideas generated at the
start of the twentieth century in a monarchy developing towards capitalism, not in the experiences and desires of living people fighting for freedom in the here and now. Yes, these
ideas and movements can be confused and unclear -- but they are living and subject to change by the influence of revolutionaries who act in a libertarian manner (i.e. as equals,
willing to learn as well as teach).

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci once wrote that "to tell the truth is a communist and revolutionary act." However, even he did not apply this when discussing anarchism and the
activities of anarchists (see Gwyn Williams' Proletarian Order, pp. 193-4). Be that as it may, Gramsci's point is correct. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act. If we judge
Mitchinson's article by this standard then we can only conclude that neither he nor the politics he defends are revolutionary or communist.

Thus we find his ending comment truly a "flight of fancy" -- after reading our comments above, we hope you agree with us. If you seek a true socialist transformation of this planet
rather than its degeneration into centralised state capitalism, discover more about anarchism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's "Marxism and Anarchism"

In issue no. 1714 of Socialist Worker (dated 16th September 2000) the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) decided to expose anarchism in an article entitled "Marxism and
Anarchism." However, their article is little more than a series of errors and distortions. We shall indicate how the SWP lies about anarchist ideas and discuss the real differences
between anarchism and Marxism. Moreover, we will indicate that the bulk of the SWP's article just recycles common Leninist slanders about anarchism, slanders that have been refuted
many times over.

1. What does the anti-globalisation movement tell us about the effectiveness of the "vanguard" parties like the SWP?

The inspiration for their diatribe is clear -- they are worried about anarchist influence in the various anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation movements and demonstrations which
are currently occurring across the world. As they put it:

    "The great revolt against capitalism in Seattle last year, and similar demonstrations since, have attracted diverse groups of protesters. Anarchists, amongst others, have taken
    part in all of those protests."

Yes, indeed, anarchists have been involved in these demonstrations from the start, unlike "vanguard" parties like the SWP who only became aware of the significance of these
movements once they exploded in the streets. That in itself should tell us something about the effectiveness of the Bolshevik inspired politics the SWP raise as an alternative to
anarchism. Rather than being at the vanguard of these demonstrations and movements, parties like the SWP have been, post-Seattle, busy trying to catch up with them. Nor is this the
only time this has happened.

In Russia, in February 1917, for example, the Bolshevik party opposed the actions that produced the revolution which overthrew the Tsar. After weeks of strikes with police attacks
on factories, the most oppressed part of the working class, the women textile workers, took the initiative. Demands for bread and attacks on bakeries were superseded by a massive
demonstration of women workers on International Women's Day. The women had ignored a local Bolshevik directive to wait until May Day! The early slogan of "Bread!" was quickly
followed by "Down with the autocracy! Down with the war!" By February 24th, half of Petrograd was on strike. The workers did go to their factories, not to work, but to hold
meetings, pass resolutions and then go out to demonstrate. The Vyborg committee of the Bolsheviks opposed the strikes. Luckily for the Russian workers, and unfortunately for the
Tsar, the Bolsheviks were ignored. If they had followed the Bolsheviks, the February Revolution would not have occurred!

The backward nature of the Bolshevik style of party can also be seen from events 12 years earlier. In 1905, workers spontaneously organised councils of workers' delegates
("soviets" in Russian). The soviets were based on workplaces electing recallable delegates to co-ordinate strikes and were created by the Russian workers themselves, independently
of political parties.

Far from being at the vanguard of these developments the Bolsheviks were, in fact, deeply hostile to them. The Bolshevik Central Committee members in Petersburg were uneasy at the
thought of a "non-Party" mass organisation existing side by side with their party. Instead of seeing the Soviet as a form of workers' self-organisation and self-activity (and so a
key area for area for activity), they regarded it with hostility. They saw it as a rival to the party.

The St. Petersburg Bolsheviks organised a campaign against the Soviet due to its "non-Party" nature. They presented an ultimatum to the Soviet that it must place itself under
the leadership of their party. On 24 October they had moved a resolution along the same lines in meetings at the various factories, demanding that the Soviet accept the Social
Democratic programme and tactics and demanding that it must define its political stance.

The Bolshevik Central Committee then published a resolution, that was binding upon all Bolsheviks throughout Russia, insisting that the soviets must accept the party programme.
Agitation against the soviet continued. On 29 October, the Bolshevik's Nevsky district committee declared inadmissible for Social Democrats to participate in any kind of "workers'
parliament" like the Soviet.

The Bolshevik argument was that the Soviet of Workers' Deputies should not have existed as a political organisation and that the social democrats must withdraw from it, since its
existence acted negatively upon the development of the social democratic movement. The Soviet of Delegates could remain as a trade union organisation, or not at all. Indeed, the
Bolsheviks presented the Soviet with an ultimatum: either accept the programme of the Bolsheviks or else disband! The Bolshevik leaders justified their hostility to the Soviet
on the grounds that it represented "the subordination of consciousness to spontaneity" -- in this they followed Lenin's arguments in What is to be Done?. When they moved their
ultimatum in the Soviet it was turned down and the Bolshevik delegates, led by the Central Committee members, walked out. The other delegates merely shrugged their shoulders and
proceeded to the next point on the agenda.

If workers had followed the Bolsheviks the 1905 revolution would not have occurred and the first major experience of workers' councils would never have happened. Rather than being
in favour of working class self-management and power, the Bolsheviks saw revolution in terms of party power. This confusion remained during and after 1917 when the Bolsheviks
finally supported the soviets (although purely as a means of ensuring a Bolshevik government).

Similarly, during the British Poll Tax rebellion of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the SWP dismissed the community based mass non-payment campaign. Instead they argued for workers
to push their trade unions leadership to call strikes to overthrow the tax. Indeed, the even argued that there was a "danger that community politics divert people from the means to
won, from the need to mobilise working class activity on a collective basis" by which they meant trade union basis. They argued that the state machine would "wear down community
resistance if it cannot tap the strength of the working class." Of course it goes without saying that the aim of the community-based non-payment campaign was working class activity
on a collective basis. This explains the creation of anti-poll tax unions, organising demonstrations, occupations of sheriff officers/bailiffs offices and council buildings, the
attempts to resist warrant sales by direct action, the attempts to create links with rank-and-file trade unionists and so on. Indeed, the SWP's strategy meant mobilising fewer
people in collective struggle as trade union members were a minority of those affected by the tax as well as automatically excluding those workers not in unions, people who were
unemployed, housewives, students and so on. Little wonder the SWP failed to make much of an impact in the campaign.

However, once non-payment began in earnest and showed hundreds of thousands involved and refusing to pay, overnight the SWP became passionate believers in the collective class
power of community based non-payment. They argued, in direct contradiction to their earlier analysis, that the state was "shaken by the continuing huge scale of non-payment."
[quoted by Trotwatch, Carry on Recruiting, pp. 29-31]

The SWP proved to be totally unresponsive to new forms of struggle and organisation produced by working class people when resisting the government. In this they followed the
Bolshevik tradition closely -- the Bolsheviks initially ignored the soviets created during the 1905 Russian Revolution and then asked them to disband. They only recognised their
importance in 1917, 12 years after that revolution was defeated and the soviets had re-appeared.

Therefore, the fact that the self-proclaimed "vanguard of the proletarian" is actually miles behind the struggle comes as no surprise. Nor are their slanders against those, like
anarchists, who are at the front of the struggle unsurprising. They produced similar articles during the poll tax rebellion as well, to counter anarchist influence by smearing our
ideas.



2. What does the SWP miss out in its definition of anarchism?

The SWP continue:

    "Anarchism is generally taken to mean a rejection of all authority."

One question immediately arises. What do anarchists mean by the term "authority"? Without knowing that, it will be difficult to evaluate the SWP's arguments.

Kropotkin provides the answer. He 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 . . . the analysis of the tendencies that are seen in the progressive movements of mankind." He stresses that anarchism "refuses all
hierarchical organisation." [ Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 158 and p. 137]

Thus anarchism rejects authority in the sense, to use Malatesta's words, of "the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands a
few." [Anarchy, p. 40] Once this is clearly understood, it will quickly been seen that the SWP create a straw man to defeat in argument.

Moreover, by concentrating on what anarchism is against the SWP can ignore what anarchism is for. This is important as to discuss the positive ideas of anarchism would mean having
to discuss anarchists ideas on organisation, why we oppose centralisation, favour federalism as a means of co-ordinating decisions, why we propose self-management in place of
government, and so on. To do this would mean accurately presenting libertarian theory rather than a just series of slanders, which, of course, the SWP would hate to do.

So what is anarchism for?

Anarchism derives from the Greek for "without authority" or "without rulers" and this informs anarchist theory and visions of a better world. 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.

This means, positively, that anarchists stress the need for self-government (often 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). In other words, those affected by a decision make that decision. Anarchism clearly means support for freedom and equality
and so all forms of hierarchical organisation (such as the state and the capitalist workplace) and authoritarian social relationship (such as sexism, racism, homophobia and wage
labour) must be abolished. This means that anarchist organisations must be self-managed, decentralised and based on federalism. Only this form of organisation can end the division
of society into rulers and ruled, oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and exploited and create a society of free and equal individuals.

This is why anarchists stress such things as decision making by mass assemblies and the co-ordination of decisions by mandated and recallable delegates. The federal structure which
unites these basic assemblies would allow local affairs to be decided upon locally and directly, with wider issues discussed and decided upon at their appropriate level and by
all involved. This would allow those affected by a decision to have a say in it, so allowing them to manage their own affairs directly and without hierarchy. This, in turn, would
encourage the self-reliance, self-confidence and initiative of those involved. As a necessary complement of our opposition to authority is support for "direct action." This means
that people, rather than looking to leaders or politicians to act for them, look to themselves and the own individual and collective strength to solve their own problems. This also
encourages self-liberation, self-reliance and self-confidence as the prevailing culture would be "if we want something sorted out, we have to do it ourselves" -- in other words, a
"do it yourself" mentality.

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. It means we oppose the state and support free federations of self-governing associations and communes. It means we oppose capitalism and support workers'
self-management. It means we reject hierarchy, centralism and authoritarian structures and argue for self-managed organisations, built from the bottom up and always accountable to
the base. It means we consider the direct control of struggles and movements by those involved as not only essential in the here and now but also essential training for living in
a free, libertarian socialist society (for example, workers direct and total control of their strikes and unions trains them to control their workplaces and communities during and
after the revolution). It means we oppose hierarchy in all its forms and support free association of equals. In other words, anarchism can generally be taken to mean support for
self-government or self-management.

By discussing only the negative side of anarchism, by missing out what kinds of authority anarchists oppose, the SWP ensure that these aspects of our ideas are not mentioned in
their article. For good reason as it puts Marxism in a bad light.



3. Why does mentioning the history of anarchism weaken the SWP's argument?

The SWP correctly argue that we "live in a world of bullying line managers, petty school rules, oppressive police, and governments that serve the rich and powerful." However,
they trivialise anarchism (and the natural feelings that result from such domination) by stating "[e]veryone who hates that has, at least at times, felt a streak of 'anarchist'
revolt against authority." Thus anarchism is presented as an emotional response rather than as valid, coherent intellectual opposition to the state, wage labour, inequality and
hierarchical authority in general. But, of course, anarchism is more than this, as the SWP acknowledge:

    "Anarchism, however, is more than a personal reaction against the tyrannies of capitalism. It is a set of political beliefs which have been held up as an alternative to the
    revolutionary socialist ideas of Karl Marx. Anarchist ideas have, on occasion, had a mass influence on movements against capitalism."

Given that the "revolutionary socialist ideas" of Marx have been proven wrong on numerous occasions while Bakunin's predictions were proven right, anarchists humbly suggest that
anarchism is a valid alternative to Marxism. For example, Bakunin correctly predicted 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] The history of the Marxist Social Democratic Parties
across the world proved him right.

Similarly, Bakunin predicted that Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" would become the "dictatorship over the proletariat." The experience of the Russian Revolution proved him
correct -- once the Bolshevik party had become the government power became centralised at the top, the workers' soviets quickly became a cog in the state machinery rubber-stamping
the decrees of the Bolshevik government, workers' control of production by factory committees was replaced by state appointed managers and so on. The "socialist" state quickly
became a bureaucratic monster without real control from below (indeed, the Bolsheviks actually disbanded soviets when opposition parties won a majority in them at the start of
1918). The start of the Civil War in May 1918 just made things worse.

The SWP continue by arguing:

    "Socialists and anarchists share a hatred of capitalism. They have often fought alongside each other in major battles against the capitalist system. They struggled together in
    the Europe-wide mass strikes at the end of the First World War and the inspiring Spanish Revolution in 1936, as well as in countless smaller battles today."

Which is true. They also fail to mention that the mass-strikes at the end of the First World War were defeated by the actions of the Social-Democratic Parties and trade unions.
These parties were self-proclaimed revolutionary Marxist organisations, utilising (as Marx had argued) the ballot box and centralised organisations. Unsurprisingly, given the
tactics and structure, reformism and bureaucracy had developed within them. When workers took strike action, even occupying their factories in Italy, the bureaucracy of the
Social Democratic Parties and trade unions acted to undermine the struggle, isolating workers and supporting capitalism. Indeed, the German Social Democratic Party (which was,
pre-1914, considered the jewel in the crown of Marxism and the best means to refute the anarchist critique of Marxist tactics) actually organised an alliance with the right-wing
para-military Freikorps to violently suppress the revolution. The Marxist movement had degenerated into bourgeois parties, as Bakunin predicted.

It is also strange that the SWP mention the "inspiring Spanish Revolution in 1936" as this revolution was mainly anarchist in its "inspiring" features. Workers took over workplaces
and the land, organising them under workers' self-management. Direct democracy was practised by hundreds of thousands of workers in line with the organisational structures of
the anarchist union the C.N.T. In contrast, the Russian Revolution saw power become centralised into the hands of the Bolshevik party leadership and workers' self- management of
production was eliminated in favour of one-man management imposed from above (see M. Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details).



4. How is the SWP wrong about centralisation?

The SWP continue by arguing that "there are differences between revolutionary socialism and anarchism. Both understand the need for organisation but disagree over what form that
organisation takes." This is a vast step forward in the usual Marxist slander that anarchists reject the need for organisation and so should be welcomed. Unfortunately the rest of
the discussion on this issue falls back into the usual swamp of slander.

They argue that "[e]very struggle, from a local campaign against housing privatisation to a mass strike of millions of workers, raises the need for organisation. People come
together and need mechanisms for deciding what to do and how to do it." They continue by arguing that "Anarchism says that organisation has nothing to do with centralisation. For
anarchism, any form of centralisation is a type of authority, which is oppressive."

This is true, anarchists do argue that centralisation places power at the centre, so disempowering the people at the base of an organisation. In order to co-ordinate activity
anarchists propose federal structures, made up on mandated delegates from autonomous assemblies. In this way, co-ordination is achieved while ensuring that power remains at the
bottom of the organisation, in the hands of those actually fighting or doing the work. Federalism does not deny the need to make agreements and to co-ordinate decisions. Far from
it -- it was put forward by anarchists precisely to ensure co-ordination of joint activity and to make agreements in such a way as to involve those subject to those decisions in
the process of making them. Federalism involves people in managing their own affairs and so they develop their initiative, self-reliance, judgement and spirit of revolt so that
they can act intelligently, quickly and autonomously during a crisis or revolutionary moment and show solidarity as and when required instead of waiting for commands from above as
occurs with centralised movements. In other words, federalism is the means to combine participation and co-ordination and to create an organisation run from the bottom up rather
than the top-down. As can be seen, anarchists do not oppose co-ordination and co-operation, making agreements and implementing them together.

After mentioning centralisation, the SWP make a massive jump of logic and assert:

    "But arguing with someone to join a struggle, and trying to put forward tactics and ideas that can take it forward are attempts to lead.

    "It is no good people coming together in a struggle, discussing what to do and then doing just what they feel like as if no discussion had taken place. We always need to take
    the best ideas and act on them in a united way."

Placing ideas before a group of people is a "lead" but it is not centralisation. Moreover, anarchists are not against making agreements! Far from it. The aim of federal
organisation is to make agreements, to co-ordinate struggles and activities. This does not mean ignoring agreements. As Kropotkin argued, the commune "cannot any longer acknowledge
any superior: that, above it, there cannot be anything, save the interests of the Federation, freely embraced by itself in concert with other Communes." [No Gods, No Masters, vol.
1, p. 259] This vision was stressed in the C.N.T.'s resolution on Libertarian Communism made in May, 1936, which stated that "the foundation of this administration will be the
Commune. These Communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at regional and national levels for the purpose of achieving goals of a general nature. The right of autonomy
is not to preclude the duty of implementation of agreements regarding collective benefits." [quoted by Jose Pierats, The C.N.T. in the Spanish Revolution, p. 68] In the words of
Malatesta:

    "But an organisation, it is argued, presupposes an obligation to co-ordinate one's own activities with those of others; thus it violates liberty and fetters initiative. As we
    see it, what really takes away liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders one powerless. Freedom is not an abstract right but the possibility of
    acting . . . it is by co-operation with his fellows that man finds the means to express his activity and his power of initiative." [Life and Ideas, pp. 86-7]

Hence anarchists do not see making collective decisions and working in a federation as an abandonment of autonomy or a violation of anarchist theory and principles. Rather, we see
such co-operation and co-ordination, generated from below upwards, as an essential means of exercising and protecting freedom.

The SWP's comment against anarchism is a typical Marxist position. The assumption seems to be that "centralisation" or "centralism" equals co-ordination and, because we reject
centralisation, anarchists must reject co-ordination, planning and agreements. However, in actuality, anarchists have always stressed the need for federalism to co-ordinate joint
activities, stressing that decision-making and organisation must flow from below upwards so that the mass of the population can manage their own affairs directly (i.e. practice
self-management and so anarchy). Unfortunately, Marxists fail to acknowledge this, instead asserting we are against co-operation, co-ordination and making agreements. The SWP's
arguments are an example of this, making spurious arguments about the need for making agreements.

In this the SWP are following in a long-line of Marxist inventions. 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 organisation from the bottom up in that or any other work. 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 French", Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 196, p. 206 and
p. 207] In this he repeated his earlier arguments concerning social revolution -- claims Engels was well aware of, just as he was well aware of the statements by Bakunin in his
"Letters to a Frenchman." In other words, Engels deliberately lied about Bakunin's political ideas. It appears that the SWP is simply following the Marxist tradition in their
article.



5. Why does the SWP's "picket line is 'authoritarian'" argument totally miss the point?

They continue by arguing:

    "Not all authority is bad. A picket line is 'authoritarian.' It tries to impose the will of the striking workers on the boss, the police and on any workers who may be conned
    into scabbing on the strike."

What should strike the reader about this example is its total lack of class analysis. In this the SWP follow Engels. In his essay On Authority, Engels argues that 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." [The Marx-Engels Reader, p. 733]

However, such an analysis is without a class basis 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" all the time. 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.

This applies equally to the SWP's example of a picket line. Is 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. The SWP are playing with words.

Needless to say, it is a large jump from the "authority" of a strikers' assembly to that of a highly centralised "workers' state" but that, of course, is what the SWP wish the
reader to do. Comparing a strikers' assembly and picket line -- which is a form of self-managed association -- with a state cannot be done. It fails to recognise the fundamental
difference. In the strikers' assembly and picket line the strikers themselves decide policy and do not delegate power away. 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. 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 exposes the 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 precludes that participation.



6. Why are the SWP's examples of "state functions" wrong?

The SWP continue their diatribe against anarchism:

    "Big workers' struggles throw up an alternative form of authority to the capitalist state. Militant mass strikes throw up workers' councils. These are democratic bodies, like
    strike committees. But they take on organising 'state functions' -- transport, food distribution, defence of picket lines and workers' areas from the police and army, and so
    on."

To state the obvious, transportation and food distribution are not "state functions." They are economic functions. Similarly, defence is not a "state function" as such -- after
all, individuals can and do defend themselves against aggression, strikers organise themselves to defend themselves against cops and hired strike breakers, and so on. This means
that defence can be organised in a libertarian fashion, directly by those involved and based on self-managed workers' militias and federations of free communes. It need not be the
work of a state nor need it be organised in a statist (i.e. hierarchical) fashion like, for example, the current bourgeois state and military or the Bolshevik Red Army (where the
election of officers, soldiers' councils and self-governing assemblies were abolished by Trotsky in favour of officers appointed from above). So "defence" is not a state function.

What is a "state function" is imposing the will of a minority -- the government, the boss, the bureaucrat -- onto the population via professional bodies such as the police and
military. This is what the Bolshevik state did, with workers' councils turned into state bodies executing the decrees of the government and using a specialised and hierarchical
army and police force to do so. The difference is important. Luigi Fabbri sums up it well:

    "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." ["Anarchy and
    'Scientific' Communism", in The Poverty of Statism, pp. 13-49, Albert Meltzer (ed.), p. 27]

Thus the difference between anarchists and Leninists is not whether the organisations workers' create in struggle will be the framework of a free society (or the basis of the
Commune). Indeed, anarchists have been arguing this for longer than Marxists have. The difference is whether these organisations remain self-managed or whether they become part of
a centralised state. In the words of Camillo Berneri:

    "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]

So, anarchists agree, in "big workers' struggles" organisation is essential and can form an alternative to the capitalist state. However, such a framework only becomes an
"authority" when power is transferred from the base into the hands of an executive committee at the top. Strike and community assemblies, by being organs of self-management, are
not an "authority" in the same sense that the state is or the boss is. Rather, they are the means by which people can manage their own struggles (and so affairs) directly, to
govern themselves and so do without the need for hierarchical authority.

The SWP, in other words, confuse two very different things.



7. What is ironic about the SWP's comment that workers' councils must "break up" the capitalist state?

After misunderstanding basic concepts, the SWP treat us to a history lesson:

    "Such councils were a feature of the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, the German Revolution after the First World War, the Spanish Revolution of 1936, and many other great
    struggles. Socialists argue that these democratic workers' organisations need to take power from the capitalists and break up their state."

Anarchists agree. Indeed, they argued that workers' organisations should "break up" and replace the state long before Lenin discovered this in 1917. For example, Bakunin argued
in the late 1860s that the International Workers' Association, an "international organisation of workers' associations from all countries", would "be able to take the revolution
into its own hands" and be "capable of replacing this departing political world of States and bourgeoisie." The "natural organisation of the masses" was "organisation by trade
association," in other words, by unions, "from the bottom up." The means of creating socialism would be "emancipation through practical action . . . workers' solidarity in their
struggle against the bosses. It means trades unions, organisation" The very process of struggle would create the framework of a new society, a federation of workers' councils,
as "strikes indicate a certain collective strength already, a certain understanding among the workers . . . each strike becomes the point of departure for the formation of new
groups." He stresses the International was a product of the class war as it "has not created the war between the exploiter and the exploited; rather, the requirements of that war
have created the International." Thus the seeds of the future society are created by the class struggle, by the needs of workers to organise themselves to resist the boss and the
state. [The Basic Bakunin, p. 110, p. 139, p. 103 and p. 150]

He stressed that the revolution would be based on federations of workers' associations, in other words, workers' councils:

    "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]

Thus it is somewhat ironic to have Leninists present basic anarchist ideas as if they had thought of them first!

Then again, the ability of the Marxists to steal anarchist ideas and claim them as their own is well know. They even rewrite history to do so. For example, the SWP's John Rees
in the essay "In Defence of October" argues that "since Marx's writings on the Paris Commune" a "cornerstone of revolutionary theory" was "that the soviet is a superior form of
democracy because it unifies political and economic power." [International Socialism, no. 52, p. 25] Nothing could be further from the truth, as Marx's writings on the Paris
Commune prove.

The Paris Commune, as Marx himself argued, 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.

Indeed the only political movement which took the position Rees falsely ascribes to Marxism was anarchism. This can be clearly seen from Bakunin's works, a few representative
quotes we have provided above. Moreover, Bakunin's position dates, we must stress, from before the Paris Commune. This position has been argued by revolutionary anarchists ever
since -- decades before Marxists did.

Similarly, Rees argues that "the socialist revolution must counterpose the soviet to parliament . . . because it needs an organ which combines economic power -- the power to strike
and take control of the workplaces -- with an insurrectionary bid for political power, breaking the old state." [Ibid.] However, he is just repeating anarchist arguments made
decades before Lenin's temporary conversion to the soviets. In the words of the anarchist Jura Federation (written in 1880):

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

    "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]

As can be seen, long before Lenin's turn towards the soviets as a means of the Bolsheviks taking power, anarchists, not Marxists, had argued that we must counterpose the council
of workers' delegates (by trade in the case of the Jura federation, by workplace in the case of the later anarcho-syndicalist unions, anarchist theory and the soviets). Anarchists
clearly saw that, to quote Bakunin, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . today unless it was simultaneously a political and a social revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 141] Unlike Marx,
who clearly saw a political revolution (the conquest of state power) coming before the economic transformation of society ("The political rule of the producer cannot coexist
with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundations upon which rests the existence of classes and
therefore of class-rule." [Marx, Op. Cit., p. 290]). This is why anarchists saw the social revolution in terms of economic and social organisation and action as its first steps
were to eliminate both capitalism and the state.

Rees, in other words, is simply stating anarchist theory as if Marxists have been arguing the same thing since 1871!

Moreover, anarchists predicted other ideas that Marx took from the experience of the Paris Commune. Marx praised the fact that each delegate to the Commune was "at any time
revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents . . . [and so] strictly responsible agents." [Op. Cit., p. 288] Anarchists had held this
position a number of years before the Commune introduced it. Proudhon was arguing in 1848 for "universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation
of the binding mandate. Politicians balk at it! Which means that in their eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their
sovereignty! That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63] We find Bakunin arguing exactly the same. For example, in 1868 he
wrote that the "Revolutionary Communal Council will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . these deputies being invested with binding mandates and
accountable and revocable at all times." [Op. Cit., p. 155]). In addition, the similarities with the Commune's political ideas and Proudhon's are clear, as are the similarities
between the Russian Soviets and Bakunin's views on revolution.

So, as well as predicting the degeneration of social democracy and the Russian revolution, anarchists have also predicted such key aspects of revolutionary situations as
organising on the basis of workplace and having delegates mandated and subject to instant recall. Such predictions flow from taking part in social movements and analysing their
tendencies. Moreover, a revolution is the resisting of current authorities and an act of self-liberation and so its parallels with anarchism are clear. As such the class struggle,
revolutionary movements and revolutions have a libertarian basis and tendencies and, therefore, it is unsurprising that anarchist ideas have spontaneously developed in them. Thus
we have a two way interaction between ideas and action. Anarchist ideas have been produced spontaneously by the class struggle due to its inherent nature as a force confronting
authority and its need for self-activity and self-organisation. Anarchism has learned from that struggle and influenced it by its generalisations of previous experiences and its
basis in opposing hierarchy. Anarchist predictions, therefore, come as no surprise.

Therefore, Marxists have not only been behind the class struggle itself, they have also been behind anarchism in terms of practical ideas on a social revolution and how to organise
to transform society. While anarchist ideas have been confirmed by the class struggle, Marxist ones have had to be revised to bring them closer to the actual state of the struggle
and to the theoretical ideas of anarchism. And the SWP have the cheek to present these ideas as if their tradition had thought of them!

Little wonder the SWP fail to present an honest account of anarchism.



8. How do the SWP re-write the history of the Russian Revolution?

Their history lesson continues:

    "This happened in Russia in October 1917 in a revolution led by the Bolshevik Party."

In reality, this did not happen. In October 1917, the Bolshevik Party took power in the name of the workers' councils, the councils themselves did not take power. This is confirmed
by Trotsky, who notes that the Bolshevik Party conference of April 1917 "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. Moreover, he 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." He continued by noting 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]

In 1920, he argued that "[w]e have more than once been accused of having substituted for the dictatorships of the Soviets the dictatorship of the party. Yet it can be said with
complete justice that the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible only be means of the dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the . . . party . . . [that] the Soviets . .
. [became] transformed from shapeless parliaments of labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In this 'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the
working class these 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 1937 he continued this theme by arguing that "the proletariat can take power only through its 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." He mocked the anarchist idea that a
socialist revolution should be based on the self-management of workers within their own autonomous class organisations:

    "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]

As can be seen, over a 17 year period Trotsky argued that it was the party which ruled, not the councils. The workers' councils became little more than rubber-stamps for the
Bolshevik government (and not even that, as the central government only submitted a fraction of its decrees to the Central Executive of the national soviet, and that soviet was
not even in permanent session). As Russian Anarchist Voline made clear "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." [The Unknown Revolution, p. 213] In the words of
Kropotkin:

    "The idea of soviets . . . councils of workers and peasants . . . controlling the economic and political life of the country is a great idea. All the more so, since it is
    necessarily follows that these councils should be composed of all who take part in the real production of national wealth by their own efforts.

    "But as long as the country is governed by a party dictatorship, the workers' and peasants' councils evidently lose their entire significance. They are reduced to the passive
    rule formerly played by the 'States General,' when they were convoked by the king and had to combat an all-powerful royal council." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, pp.
    254-5]

In other words, the workers' councils took power in name only. Real power rested with the central government and the workers' councils become little more than a means to elect the
government. Rather than manage society directly, the soviets simply became a transmission belt for the decrees and orders of the Bolshevik party. Hardly a system to inspire anyone.

However, the history of the Russian Revolution has two important lessons for members of the various anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist groups. Firstly, as we noted in section
1, is usually miles behind the class struggle and the ideas developed in it. As another example, we can point to the movement for workers' control and self-management that
developed around the factory committees during the summer of 1917. It was the workers themselves, not the Bolshevik Party, which raised the issue of workers' self-management
and control during the Russian Revolution. 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." [Red Petrograd, p. 154] Given that the defining aspect of capitalism is wage labour,
the Russian workers' raised a clearly socialist demand that entailed its abolition. It was the Bolshevik party, we must note, who failed to raise above a "trade union conscious" in
this and so many other cases.

Therefore, rather than being at the forefront of struggle and ideas, the Bolsheviks were, in fact, busy trying to catch up. History has repeated itself in the anti-capitalist
demonstrations We should point out that anarchists have supported the idea of workers' self-management of production since 1840 and, unsurprisingly enough, were extremely active in
the factory committee movement in 1917.

The second lesson to be gained from the Russian Revolution is that while the Bolsheviks happily (and opportunistically) took over popular slogans and introduced them into their
rhetoric, they rarely meant the same thing to the Bolsheviks as they did to the masses. For example, as noted above, the Bolsheviks took up the slogan "All Power to the Soviets"
but rather than mean that the Soviets would manage society directly they actually meant the Soviets would delegate their power to a Bolshevik government which would govern society
in their name. Similarly with the term "workers' control of production." As S.A. Smith correctly notes, 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." [ Op. Cit., p. 154] Once in power, the Bolsheviks systematically undermined the popular meaning of workers' control and replaced it with their
own, statist conception. This ultimately resulted in the introduction of "one-man management" (with the manager appointed from above by the state). This process is documented
in Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, who also indicates the clear links between Bolshevik practice and Bolshevik ideology as well as how both differed from
popular activity and ideas.

Hence the comments by Russian Anarchist Peter Arshinov:

    "Another no less important peculiarity is that [the] October [revolution of 1917] has two meanings -- that which the working' masses who participated in the social revolution
    gave it, and with them the Anarchist-Communists, and that which was given it by the political party [the Marxist-Communists] that captured power from this aspiration to social
    revolution, and which betrayed and stifled all further development. An enormous gulf exists between these two interpretations of October. The October of the workers and
    peasants is the suppression of the power of the parasite classes in the name of equality and self-management. The Bolshevik October is the conquest of power by the party of the
    revolutionary intelligentsia, the installation of its 'State Socialism' and of its 'socialist' methods of governing the masses." [The Two Octobers]

The members of the "anti-capitalist" movements should bear that in mind when the SWP uses the same rhetoric as they do. Appearances are always deceptive when it comes to Leninists.
The history of the Russian Revolution indicates that while Leninists like the SWP can use the same words as popular movements, their interpretation of them can differ drastically.

Take, for example, the expression "anti-capitalist." The SWP will claim that they, too, are "anti-capitalist" but, in fact, they are only opposed to "free market" capitalism and
actually support state capitalism. Lenin, for example, argued 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)" and 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]

He confused state capitalism with socialism. "State capitalism," he wrote, "is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of
history between which and the rung called socialism there are no gaps." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 259] He argued that socialism "is nothing but the next step forward from
state capitalist monopoly. In other words, Socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly." [The
Threatening Catastrophe and how to avoid it, p. 37]

As Peter Arshinov argued, a "fundamental fact" of the Bolshevik revolution was "that the workers and the peasant labourers remained within the earlier situation of 'working
classes' -- producers managed by authority from above." He stressed that Bolshevik political and economic ideas may have "remov[ed] the workers from the hands of individual
capitalists" but they "delivered them to the yet more rapacious hands of a single ever-present capitalist boss, the State. The relations between the workers and this new boss are
the same as earlier relations between labour and capital . . . Wage labour has remained what it was before, expect that it has taken on the character of an obligation to the State.
. . . It is clear that in all this we are dealing with a simple substitution of State capitalism for private capitalism." [The History of the Makhnovist Movement, p. 35 and p. 71]
Therefore, looking at Bolshevism in power and in theory it is clear that it is not, in fact, "anti-capitalist" but rather in favour of state capitalism and any appropriation of
popular slogans was always under the firm understanding that the Bolshevik interpretation of these ideas is what will be introduced.

Therefore the SWP's attempt to re-write Russian History. The actual events of the Russian Revolution indicate well the authoritarian and state-capitalist nature of Leninist
politics.



9. How do the SWP re-write the history of the Spanish Revolution?

The SWP, after re-writing Russian history, move onto Spanish history:

    "It did not happen in Spain in 1936. The C.N.T., a trade union heavily influenced by anarchist ideas, led a workers' uprising in the city of Barcelona that year. Workers'
    councils effectively ran the city.

    "But the capitalist state machine did not simply disappear. The government and its army, which was fighting against Franco's fascist forces, remained, although it had no
    authority in Barcelona.

    "The government even offered to hand power over to the leaders of the C.N.T. But the C.N.T. believed that any form of state was wrong. It turned down the possibility of forming
    a workers' state, which could have broken the fascists' coup and the capitalist state.

    "Worse, it accepted positions in a government that was dominated by pro-capitalist forces.

    "That government crushed workers' power in Barcelona, and in doing so fatally undermined the fight against fascism."

It is hard to know where to start with this distortion of history.

Firstly, we have to point out that the C.N.T. did lead a workers' uprising in 1936 but in was in response to a military coup and occurred all across Spain. The army was not
"fighting against Franco's fascist forces" but rather had been the means by which Franco had tried to impose his version of fascism. Indeed, as the SWP know fine well, one of the
first acts the CNT did in the Spanish Revolution was to organise workers' militias to go fight the army in those parts of Spain in which the unions (particularly the CNT which lead
the fighting) did not defeat it by street fighting. Thus the C.N.T. faced the might of the Spanish army rising in a fascist coup. That, as we shall see, influenced its decisions.

By not mentioning (indeed, lying about) the actual conditions the CNT faced in July 1936, the SWP ensure the reader cannot understand what happened and why the CNT made the
decisions it did. Instead the reader is encouraged to think it was purely a result of anarchist theory. Needless to say, the SWP have a fit when it is suggested the actions of
the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War were simply the result of Leninist ideology and unaffected by the circumstances they were made in. The logic is simple: the mistakes
of Marxists are never their fault, never derive from Marxist politics and are always attributable to circumstances (regardless of the facts); the mistakes of anarchists, however,
always derive from their politics and can never be explained by circumstances (regardless of counter-examples and those circumstances). Once this is understood, the reason why the
SWP distorted the history of the Spanish Revolution becomes clear.

Secondly, anarchism does not think that the "capitalist state machine" will "simply disappear." Rather, anarchists think that (to quote Kropotkin) the revolution "must smash the
State and replace it with the Federation [of workers' associations and communes] and it will act accordingly." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259] In other words, the state does
not disappear, it is destroyed and replaced with a new, libertarian, form of social structure. Thus the SWP misrepresents anarchist theory.

Thirdly, yes, the Catalan government did offer to stand aside for the C.N.T. and the C.N.T. rejected the offer. Why? The SWP claim that "the C.N.T. believed that any form of state
was wrong" and that is why it did not take power. That is true, but what the SWP fail to mention is more important. The C.N.T. refused to implement libertarian communism after the
defeat of the army uprising in July 1936 simply because it did not want to be isolated nor have to fight the republican government as well as the fascists (needless to say, such a
decision, while understandable, was wrong). But such historical information would confuse the reader with facts and make their case against anarchism less clear-cut.

Ironically the SWP's attack on the CNT indicates well the authoritarian basis of its politics and its support of soviets simply as a means for the party leaders to take power.
After all, they obviously consider it a mistake for the "leaders of the CNT" to refuse power. Trotsky made the same point, arguing that:

    "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]

Yet the SWP say they, and their political tradition, are for "workers' power" yet, in practice, they clearly mean that power will be seized, held and exercised by the workers'
leaders. A strange definition of "workers' power," we must admit but one that indicates well the differences between anarchists and Marxists. The former aim for a society based on
workers' self-management. The latter desire a society in which workers' delegate their power to control society (i.e. their own lives) to the "leaders," to the "workers' party"
who will govern on their behalf. The "leaders" of the CNT quite rightly rejected such this position -- unfortunately they also rejected the anarchist position at the same time and
decided to ignore their politics in favour of collaborating with other anti-fascist unions and parties against Franco.

Simply put, either the workers' have the power or the leaders do. To confuse the rule of the party with workers' self-management of society lays the basis for party dictatorship
(as happened in Russia). Sadly, the SWP do exactly this and fail to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution.

Therefore, the SWP's argument against anarchism is logically flawed. Yes, the CNT did not take state power. However, neither did it destroy the state, as anarchist theory argues.
Rather it ignored the state and this was its undoing. Thus the SWP attacks anarchism for anarchists failing to act in an anarchist manner! How strange.

One last point. The events of the Spanish Revolution are important in another way for evaluating anarchism and Marxism. Faced with the military coup, the Spanish government did
nothing, even refusing to distribute arms to the workers. The workers, however, took the initiative, seized arms by direct action and took to the streets to confront the army.
Indeed, the dynamic response of the CNT members to Franco's coup compared to the inaction of the Marxist inspired German workers movement faced with Hitler's taking of power
presents us with another example of the benefits of federalism against centralism, of anarchism against Marxism. The federal structure of the CNT had accustomed its members to act
for themselves, to show initiative and act without waiting for orders from the centre. The centralised German system did the opposite.

The SWP will argue, of course, that the workers were mislead by their leaders ("who were only Marxists in name only"). The question then becomes: why did they not act for
themselves? Perhaps because the centralised German workers' movement had eroded their members initiative, self-reliance and spirit of revolt to such a degree that they could no
longer act without their leaders instructions? It may be argued that with better leaders the German workers would have stopped the Nazis, but such a plea fails to understand why
better leaders did not exist in the first place. A centralised movement inevitably produces bureaucracy and a tendency for leaders to become conservative and compromised.

All in all, rather than refute anarchism the experience of the Spanish Revolution confirms it. The state needs to be destroyed, not ignored or collaborated with, and replaced by a
federation of workers' councils organised from the bottom-up. By failing to do this, the CNT did ensure the defeat of the revolution but it hardly indicates a failure of anarchism.
Rather it indicates a failure of anarchists who made the wrong decision in extremely difficult circumstances.

Obviously it is impossible to discuss the question of the C.N.T. during the Spanish Revolution in depth here. We address the issue of Marxist interpretations of Spanish Anarchist
history in the appendix "Marxism and Spanish Anarchism." Section 20 of that appendix discusses the C.N.T.'s decision to collaborate with the Republican State against Franco as well
as its implications for anarchism.



10. Do anarchists ignore the fact that ideas change through struggle?

The SWP try and generalise from these experiences:

    "In different ways, the lessons of Russia and Spain are the same. The organisational questions thrown up in particular struggles are critical when it comes to the working class
    challenging capitalism.

    "Workers face conflicting pressures. On the one hand, they are forced to compete in the labour market. They feel powerless, as an individual, against the boss.

    "That is why workers can accept the bosses' view of the world. At the same time constant attacks on workers' conditions create a need for workers to unite and fight back
    together.

    "These two pressures mean workers' ideas are uneven. Some see through the bosses' lies. Others can be largely taken in. Most part accept and part reject capitalist ideas. The
    overall consciousness of the working class is always shifting. People become involved in struggles which lead them to break with pro-capitalist ideas."

That is very true and anarchists are well aware of it. That is why anarchists organise groups, produce propaganda, argue their ideas with others and encourage direct action and
solidarity. We do so because we are aware that the ideas within society are mixed and that struggle leads people to break with pro-capitalist ideas. To quote Bakunin:

    "the germs of [socialist thought] . . . [are to] be found in the instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . . is to make the worker fully aware of what he wants, to unjam
    within him a stream of thought corresponding to his instinct . . . What impedes the swifter development of this salutary though among the working masses? Their ignorance to
    be sure, that is, for the most part the political and religious prejudices with which self-interested classes still try to obscure their conscious and their natural instinct.
    How can we dispel this ignorance and destroy these harmful prejudices? By education and propaganda? . . . they are insufficient . . . [and] who will conduct this propaganda? .
    . . [The] workers' world . . . is left with but a single path, that of emancipation through practical action . . . It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the
    bosses. It means trade-unions, organisation . . . To deliver [the worker] from that ignorance [of reactionary ideas], the International relies on collective experience he gains
    in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses . . . As soon as he begins to take an active part in this wholly material
    struggle, . . . Socialism replaces religion in his mind. . . through practice and collective experience . . . the progressive and development of the economic struggle will
    bring him more and more to recognise his true enemies . . . The workers thus enlisted in the struggle will necessarily . . . recognise himself to be a revolutionary socialist,
    and he will act as one." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 102-3]

Therefore anarchists are well aware of the importance of struggle and propaganda in winning people to anarchist ideas. No anarchist has ever argued otherwise.



11. Why do anarchists oppose the Leninist "revolutionary party"?

The SWP argue that:

    "So there is always a battle of ideas within the working class. That is why political organisation is crucial. Socialists seek to build a revolutionary party not only to try to
    spread the lessons from one struggle to another.

    "They also want to organise those people who most clearly reject capitalism into a force that can fight for their ideas inside the working class as a whole. Such a party is
    democratic because its members constantly debate what is happening in today's struggles and the lessons that can be applied from past ones."

That, in itself, is something most anarchists would agree with. That is why they build specific anarchist organisations which discuss and debate politics, current struggles, past
struggles and revolutions and so on. In Britain there are three national anarchist federations (the Anarchist Federation, the Solidarity Federation and the Class War Federation) as
well as numerous local groups and regional federations. The aim of these organisations is to try and influence the class struggle towards anarchist ideas (and, equally important,
learn from that struggle as well -- the "program of the Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist group], expanded to keep pace with developing situations." [Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p.
406]). The need for a specific political organisation is one most anarchists would agree with.

Thus few anarchists are believers in spontaneous revolution and see the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists to spread anarchist ideas and push the struggle towards
anarchist ends (smashing the state and capitalism and the creation of a free federation of workers' councils and communes) via anarchist tactics (direct action, solidarity, general
strikes, insurrection and encouraging working class self-organisation and self-management). Hence the need for specific anarchist organisations:

    "The Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist group] is the necessary complement to the International [the revolutionary workers' movement]. But the International and the Alliance, while
    having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. The International endeavours to unify the working masses . . . regardless of nationality and national boundaries
    or religious and political beliefs, into one compact body; the Alliance . . . tries to give these masses a really revolutionary direction. The programs of one and the other,
    without being opposed, differ in the degree of their revolutionary development. The International contains in germ, but only in germ, the whole program of the Alliance. The
    program of the Alliance represents the fullest unfolding of the International." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 157]

However, anarchists also argue that the revolutionary organisation must also reflect the type of society we want. Hence an anarchist federation must be self-organised from below,
rejecting hierarchy and embracing self-management. For anarchists an organisation is not democratic because it debates, as the SWP claims. It is democratic only if the membership
actually decides the policy of the organisation. That the SWP fail to mention this is significant and places doubt on whether their organisation is democratic in fact (as we
indicate in section 22, the SWP may debate but it is not democratic). The reason why democracy in the SWP may not be all that it should be can be found in their comment that:

    "It is also centralised, as it arrives at decisions which everyone acts on."

However, this is not centralisation. Centralisation is when the centre decides everything and the membership follow those orders. That the membership may be in a position to
elect those at the centre does not change the fact that the membership is simply expected to follow orders. It is the organisational principle of the army or police, not of a
free society. That this is the principle of Leninism can be seen from Trotsky's comment that the "statues [of the party] should express the leadership's organised distrust of the
members, a distrust manifesting itself in vigilant control from above over the Party." [quoted by M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. xi] Thus the centre controls
the membership, not vice versa.

In What is to be Done? Lenin discussed "the confusion of ideas concerning the meaning of democracy." He dismisses the idea of self-management as "Primitive Democracy." He uses the
example of the early British unions, where workers "thought that it was an indispensable sign of democracy for all the members to do all the work of managing the unions; not only
were all questions decided by the vote of all the members, but all the official duties were fulfilled by all the members in turn." He considered "such a conception of democracy"
as "absurd" and saw it as historical necessity that it was replaced by "representative institutions" and "full-time officials". [Essential Works of Lenin, pp. 162-3] In other
words, the Leninist tradition rejects self-management in favour of hierarchical structures in which power is centralised in the hands of "full-time officials" and "representative
institutions."

In contrast, Bakunin argued that trade unions which ended "primitive democracy" and replaced it with representative institutions became bureaucratic and "simply left all
decision-making to their committees . . . In this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees
substituted their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership." The membership become subject to "the arbitrary power" of the committees and "ruled by oligarchs." In
other words, bureaucracy set in and democracy as such was eliminated and while "very good for the committees . . . [it was] not at all favourable for the social, intellectual, and
moral progress of the collective power" of the workers' movement. [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 246-7] Who was correct can quickly be seen from the radical and pro-active nature of
the British trade union leadership. Ironically, the SWP always bemoan trade union bureaucracies betraying workers in struggle yet promote an organisational structure that ensures
that power flows to the centre and into the hands of bureaucrats.

At best, Leninism reduces "democracy" to mean that the majority designates its rulers, copied from the model of bourgeois parliamentary democracy. In practice it is drained of
any real meaning and 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.
That the central committee is designated by a "democratically elected" congress makes no difference once it is elected, it is de facto and de jure the absolute ruler of the
organisation. It has complete (statutory) control over the body of the Party (and can dissolve the base organisations, kick out militants, etc.).

Therefore it is ironic that the SWP promote themselves as supporters of democracy as it is anarchists who support the "primitive democracy" (self-management) contemptuously
dismissed by Lenin. With their calls for centralisation, it is clear that SWP still follow Lenin, wishing to place decision-making at the centre of the organisation, in the hands
of leaders, in the same way the police, army and bureaucratic trade unions do. Anarchists reject this vision as non-socialist and instead argue for the fullest participation in
decision making by those subject to those decisions. Only in this way can government -- inequality in power -- be eliminated from society.

Just to stress the point, anarchists are not opposed to people making decisions and everyone who took part in making the decision acting on them. Such a system is not
"centralised," however, when the decisions flow from the bottom-up and are made by mandated delegates, accountable to the people who mandated them. It is centralised when it is
decided upon by the leadership and imposed upon the membership. Thus the issue is not whether we organise or not organise, nor whether we co-ordinate joint activity or not, it is a
question of how we organise and co-ordinate -- from the bottom up or from the top down. 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. . .

    "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]

Therefore, anarchists see the need to make agreements, to stick by them and to show discipline but we argue that this must be to the agreements we helped to make and subject to our
judgement. We reject "centralisation" as it confuses the necessity of agreement with hierarchical power, of solidarity and agreement from below with unity imposed from above as
well as the need for discipline with following orders.



12. Why do the SWP make a polemical fetish of "unity" and "democracy" to the expense of common sense and freedom?

The SWP argue that "unity" is essential:

    "Without unity around decisions there would be no democracy - minorities would simply ignore majority decisions."

Anarchists are in favour of free agreement and so argue that minorities should, in general, go along with the majority decisions of the groups and federations they are members of.
That is, after all, the point behind federalism -- to co-ordinate activity. Minorities can, after all, leave an association. As Malatesta argued, "anarchists recognise that where
life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to
do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need adapt to the wishes of the many." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 100] The Spanish C.N.T. argued in its vision of
Libertarian Communism that:

    "Communes are to be autonomous and will be federated at regional and national levels for the purpose of achieving goals of a general nature. . . . communes . . . will
    undertake to adhere to whatever general norms [that] may be majority vote after free debate. . . The inhabitants of a Commune are to debate their internal problems . . . among
    themselves. Whenever problems affecting an entire comarca [district] or province are involved, it must be the Federations [of communes] who deliberate and at every reunion
    or assembly these may hold all of the Communes are to be represented and their delegates will relay the viewpoints previously approved in their respective Communes . . .
    On matters of a regional nature, it will be up to the Regional Federation to put agreements into practice and these agreements will represent the sovereign will of all the
    region's inhabitants. So the starting point is the individual, moving on through the Commune, to the Federation and right on up finally to the Confederation." [quoted by Jose
    Pierats, The C.N.T. in the Spanish Revolution, pp. 68-9]

Therefore, 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? In 1914, the representatives of the German Social
Democratic Party 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 the SWP argue
that they were right to do so? Similarly, if a majority of a community decided, say, that homosexuals were to be arrested, would the SWP argue that minorities must not ignore that
decision? We hope not.

In general, anarchists would argue that a minority should ignore the majority when their decisions violate the fundamental ideas which the organisation or association are built
on. In other words, if the majority violates the ideals of liberty, equality and solidarity then the minority can and should reject the decisions of the majority. So, a decision
of the majority that violates the liberty of a non-oppressive minority -- say, restricting their freedom of association -- then minorities can and should ignore the decisions and
practice civil disobedience to change that decision. Similarly, if a decision violates the solidarity and the feelings of equality which should inform decisions, then, again, the
minority should reject the decision. We cannot accept majority decisions without question simply because the majority can be wrong. Unless the minority can judge the decisions of
the majority and can reject them then they are slaves of the majority and the equality essential for a socialist society is eliminated in favour of mere obedience.

However, if the actions of the majority are simply considered to be disastrous but breaking the agreement would weaken the actions of the majority, then solidarity should be
the overwhelming consideration. 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]

He stresses the point:

    "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?" [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.

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 groups like the SWP 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.

So, in practice the SWP argue that the majority of an organisation cannot be consulted on every issue and so what they actually mean is that the decisions of the central committee
(or government) should be followed at all times. In other words, the decisions of a minority (the leaders) should be obeyed by the majority. A minority owns and controls the
"revolutionary" organisation and "democracy" is quickly turned into its opposite. Very "democratic."

As we shall indicate in the next two sections, the SWP do not, in fact, actually follow their own arguments. They are quite happy for minorities to ignore majority decisions -- as
long as the minority in question is the leadership of their own parties. As we argue in section 14, such activities flow naturally from the vanguardist politics of Leninism and
should not come as a surprise.



13. How does the Battle of Prague expose the SWP as hypocrites?

To evaluate the sincerity of the SWP's proclaimed commitment to "democracy" and "centralism" we just have to look at the actions of their contingent at the demonstration against
the WTO and IMF in Prague on September 26th, 2000.

Let us recall that on September 16th, the SWP had argued as follows:

    "It is no good people coming together in a struggle, discussing what to do and then doing just what they feel like as if no discussion had taken place."

They stressed that importance of "centralisation" which they defined as "arriv [ing] at decisions which everyone acts on. Without unity around decisions there would be no democracy
-- minorities would simply ignore majority decisions."

In practice, the International Socialist (IS) section of the Prague demonstration (the SWP and its sister parties) totally ignored their own arguments. Instead of ending up in the
Pink sector (for which they had put themselves down) they somehow ended up behind "Ya Basta" in the yellow sector. As they were at the front of the march this should have been
impossible. It turns out they deliberately entered the wrong sector because they refused to accept the agreed plan to split the march in three.

The protests had been co-ordinated by INPEG. INPEG was established as a democratic implement of communication and co-ordination among individuals and groups which want to protest
against the annual summit of IMF in Prague on September 2000. It included a variety groups -- for instance reformists (e.g. NESEHNUTI), anarchists (e.g. CSAF or Solidarity) and
Leninists (i.e. Socialist Solidarity, sister organisation of the British SWP). The IS group had argued at INPEG committee meetings earlier in the year for a single march on the
centre (which of course could not have shut the conference down). They failed to win this argument and so had betrayed the rest of the protesters on the day by simply marching
directly onto the bridge themselves (in the yellow sector) instead of continuing into the Pink sector as they were supposed to.

Why did the SWP do what they did? Presumably they put themselves down for the Pink section because it was at the front of the march and so offered the best media coverage for their
placards and banners. Similarly, they joined the Yellow Section because it was marching directly to the conference centre and not, like Pink, going round to the rear and so, again,
offered the best media coverage. In other words, they "did their own thing", ignored the agreements they made and weakened the protests simply to look the dominant group in the
press. Ironically, the Czech media made sure that the Leninist parties got onto their front pages simply because many of them chose to march in Prague with red flags emblazoned
with hammer and sickles. Flags associated with the Soviet occupation and the old regime are hardly "popular" and so useful to smear the protests.

The decision of the SWP to ignore the agreed plan was applauded by other Leninists. According to the post-Prague issue of the Communist Party of Great Britain's paper Weekly
Worker:

    "Farcically, the organisers had decided to split the march into three, each with its own route and composition -- blue (anarchist), pink (trade unions and left organisations)
    and yellow (NGOs and Jubilee 2000). Ostensibly, this started as a tactic designed to facilitate forming a human chain around the conference centre, although by the day of
    the action this aim had, apparently, been abandoned. Whether these truly stupid arrangements had been accepted beforehand by all on the INPEG (Initiative Against Economic
    Globalisation) remains hazy, given the paucity of information about the debates and differences on this self-appointed body."

The splitting of the march into three, as a matter of fact, was a great success. It allowed the demonstrators to encircle the conference centre. The marches splitting off from the
back working beautifully, catching the police and media by surprise who were clustered at the front of the march (indeed, the police later admitted that they had been caught off
guard by the splitting of the march). From the splitting points to the centre the marches were unaccompanied by both police and media. A clear victory. Indeed, what would have been
"truly stupid" was doing what the police had expected (and SWP wanted) -- to have one big march.

How was the demonstration's organised? According to eye-witness Katharine Viner (writing in The Guardian on Friday September 29, 2000):

    "In the run-up to Tuesday's demonstration I attended the convergence centre, where 'spokes council' meetings took place, and found the sense of community and organisation there
    astonishing and moving. Every 'affinity group' - NGO or group of friends - sent a spokesperson to meetings to make decisions and work out strategy. It sounds impossible to
    contain, and it was laborious, but it worked and consensus was found. It felt like proper democracy in a way that the ballot box does not."

Julie Light, of Corporate Watch, indicates the same process at work in her account entitled Spirits, Tensions Run High in Prague (dated September 25, 2000):

    "the activist coalition called the Initiative Against Economic Globalisation (INPEG) is training hundreds of people in civil disobedience at the Convergence Centre. The Centre,
    a converted warehouse space located under Prague's Libensky Bridge, serves as an information and strategy clearinghouse for the protesters. A 'spokes council' made up of
    representatives of dozens of groups makes decisions by consensus for this international ad-hoc coalition that has never worked together before. They have an elaborate system of
    hand signals to indicate their views as they discuss the details of the protests. Given the logistical obstacles, things seem to be running remarkably smoothly."

Obviously "proper democracy" and a council of group spokespeople discussing the protests were not good enough for the SWP and other Leninist groups. Nor, of course, making an
agreement and sticking to it.

The Weekly Worker complements the SWP's decision:

    "Come the march itself, the damage was partially repaired by the decision of a majority of the 'pink' contingent (with the SWP and its international sections to the fore) to
    simply veer off the agreed route. This pink section then partially merged with the yellow to advance on the conference."

We must point out that the International Socialist appear to have lied about the numbers they were bringing to Prague. The day before the demonstration they claimed they said they
would contribute 2,500 to the Pink section -- since then their own press has reported 1,000 in their delegation (Socialist Worker no. 1716 stated that the "day began when over
1,000 marched from the Florenc bus station . . .led by supporters of Socialist Worker and its sister papers elsewhere in Europe"). This would have left the Pink block seriously
under strength even if they had not unilaterally left their block.

Their defection from the agreed plan had very serious repercussions on the day -- one gate in the Pink sector was never covered. In the Blue sector, where the anarchists were
concentrated, this meant that at the height of a battle with hundreds of riot police, a water cannon and two Armoured Personnel Carriers they were forced to send 300 people on a 2
km hike to attempt to close this gate. Shortly after they left a police charge broke the Blue Block lines leading to arrests and injuries.

Thus, by ignoring the plan and doing their own thing, they not only made a mockery of their own arguments and the decision making process of the demonstration, weakened the protest
and placed others in danger.

And the net effect of their defection? As the Weekly Worker pathetically comments:

    "Of course, it was blocked by ranks of riot police . . ."

As the bridge was a very narrow front this resulted in a huge amount of people stuck behind "Ya Basta!" with nothing to do except sit around. So the "International Socialists" and
other Leninists who undertook the act of sabotage with them were stuck doing nothing behind "Ya Basta" at the bottom of the bridge (as would be expected -- indeed, this exposes
another failing of centralism, its inability to know local circumstances, adapt to them and plan taking them into account). The tiny number of anarchists who marched around to
cover their gate on the other hand, took the police by surprise and broke through to the conference centre until driven back by hundreds of riot police. Worse, there were some
problems in the "Yellow Block" as the Leninists were pushing from behind and it took some serious explaining to get them to understand that they should stop it because otherwise
people in the front line could be crushed to death. Moreover, they demanded to be allowed up alongside "Ya Basta" at the front, next to the riot cops, but when "Ya Basta" did pull
out and invited the SWP to take their place in the front they refused to do so.

Moreover, the actual result of the SWP's disgraceful actions in Prague also indicates the weakness of centralism. Having centrally decided to have one big march (regardless of
what the others thought or the majority wished or agreed to) the decision was made with clearly no idea of the local geography otherwise they would have known that the front at
the bridge would have been small. The net result of the "efficient" centralisation of the SWP? A mass of protestors stuck doing nothing due to a lack of understanding of local
geography and the plan to blockade the conference seriously weakened. A federal organisation, on the other hand, would have had information from the local activists who would have
been organising the protests and made their plans accordingly.

Therefore, to summarise. Ten days after denouncing anarchism for refusing to accept majority decisions and for being against "centralisation" (i.e. making and keeping agreements),
the SWP ignore majority decisions, break agreements and do their own thing. Not only that, they weaken the demonstration and place their fellow protestors in difficulties simply so
they could do nothing someplace else as, unsurprisingly enough, their way was blocked by riot cops. An amazing example of "democratic centralism" in practice and sure to inspire us
all to follow the path of Marxism-Leninism!

The hypocrisy of their actions and arguments are clear. The question now arises, what do anarchists think of their action. As we argued in the last section, while anarchists
favour direct democracy (self-management) when making decisions we also accept that minorities can and should ignore a majority decision if that decision is considered to be truly
disastrous. However, any such decision must be made based on evaluating the damage caused by so making it and whether it would be a violation of solidarity to do so. This is what
the SWP clearly failed to do. Their decision not only made a mockery of their own argument, it failed to take into account solidarity with the rest of the demonstration.

From an anarchist perspective, therefore, the SWP's decision and actions cannot be justified. They violated the basic principles of a revolutionary movement, the principles of
liberty, equality and solidarity. They ignored the liberty of others by violating their agreements with them, they violated their equality by acting as if the other groups ideas
and decisions did not matter and they violated solidarity by ignoring the needs of the common struggle and so placing their fellow demonstrators in danger. While anarchists do
respect the rights of minorities to act as they see fit, we also recognise the importance of solidarity with our fellow workers and protestors. The SWP by failing to consider the
needs of the common struggle sabotaged the demonstration and should be condemned not only as hypocrites but also as elitists -- the party is not subject to the same rules as other
demonstrators, whose wishes are irrelevant when they conflict with the party. The implications for the SWP's proclaimed support for democracy is clear.

So it appears that minorities can and should ignore agreements -- as long as the minority in question are the leaders of the SWP and its sister parties. They have exposed
themselves as being hypocrites. Like their heroes, Lenin and Trotsky, they will ignore democratic decisions when it suits them (see next section). This is sickening for numerous
reasons -- it placed the rest of the demonstrators in danger, it weakened the demonstration itself and it shows that the SWP say one thing and do the exact opposite. They, and the
political tradition they are part of, clearly are not to be trusted. The bulk of the membership went along with this betrayal like sheep. Hardly a good example of revolutionary
consciousness. In fact it shows that the "revolutionary" discipline of the SWP is like that of the cops or army) and that SWP's centralised system is based on typically bourgeois
notions. In other words, the organisational structure desired by the SWP does not encourage the autonomy, initiative or critical thinking of its members (as anarchists have long
argued).

Prague shows that their arguments for "centralisation" as necessary for "democracy" are hypocrisy and amount to little more than a call for domination by the SWP's leadership
over the anti-capitalist movement -- a call hidden begin the rhetoric of "democracy." As can be seen, in practice the SWP happily ignores democracy when it suits them. The party
always comes first, regardless of what the people it claims to represent actually want. In this they follow the actions of the Bolsheviks in power (see next section). Little wonder
Marxism-Leninism is dying -- the difference between what they claim and what they do is becoming increasingly well know.



14. Is the Leninist tradition actually as democratic as the SWP like to claim?

While the SWP attack anarchism for being undemocratic for being against "centralism" the truth is that the Leninist tradition is fundamentally undemocratic. Those, like the SWP,
who are part of the Bolshevik tradition have no problem with minorities ignoring majority decisions -- as long as the minority in question is the leadership of the vanguard party.
We discussed the example of the "battle of Prague" in the last section, now we turn to Bolshevism in power during the Russian Revolution.

For example, the Bolsheviks usually overthrew the results of provincial soviet elections that went against them [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, pp 22-24]. It was in the spring
of 1918 that the Bolsheviks showed how little they really supported the soviets. As discontent grew soviet after soviet fell to Menshevik-SR blocs. To stay in power they had to
destroy the soviets and they did. Opposition victories were followed by disbanding of the soviets and often martial law. [Vladimir Brovkin, "The Menshevik's Political Comeback: The
elections to the provincial soviets in spring 1918", Russian Review no. 42 (1983), pp. 1-50]

In addition, the Bolsheviks abolished by decree soldiers' councils and the election of officers in the Red Army in favour of officers appointed from above (see section 11 of the
appendix "Marxism and Spanish Anarchism" for details). They replaced self-managed factory committees with appointed, autocratic managers (see M. Brinton's The Bolsheviks and
Workers Control or section 17 of the appendix "Marxism and Spanish Anarchism" for details). All this before the start of the Russian Civil War. Similarly, Lenin and Trotsky happily
replaced the democratically elected leaders of trade unions with their followers when it suited them.

As Trotsky argued in 1921, 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 M. Brinton, The
Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 78]

Of course, such a position follows naturally from Lenin's theory from What is to be Done? that "the working class, exclusively by their own effort, is able to develop only trade
union consciousness . . . The theory of socialism [i.e. Marxism], however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated
representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals . . . the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the labour
movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of ideas among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." This meant that "Social Democratic [i.e. socialist] consciousness
. . . could only be brought to them from without." [Essential Lenin, pp. 74-5]

For Leninists, if the workers' act in ways opposed to by the party, then the party has the right to ignore, even repress, the workers -- they simply do not (indeed, cannot)
understand what is required of them. They cannot reach "socialist consciousness" by their own efforts -- indeed, their opinions can be dismissed as "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 . . . to belittle
socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree means strengthening bourgeois ideology . . . the spontaneous development of the labour movement leads to
it becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology." [Op. Cit., p. 82] Given that the socialist ideology cannot be communicated without the vanguard party, this means that the party
can ignore the wishes of the masses simply because such wishes must be influenced by "bourgeois" ideology. Thus Leninism contains within itself the justification for eliminating
democracy within the revolution. From Lenin's arguments to Bolshevik actions during the revolution and Trotsky's assertions in 1921 is only a matter of time -- and power.

In other words, the SWP's "Battle of Ideas" becomes, once the vanguard is in power, just a battle:

    "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." [Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 170]

Significantly, of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical information was available on 1 November 1920, peasants and workers constituted the largest groups, at 39% and 34%
respectively. Similarly, of the 40 913 prisoners held in December 1921 (of whom 44% had been committed by the Cheka) nearly 84% were illiterate or minimally educated, clearly,
therefore, either peasants of workers. [George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, p. 178] Needless to say, Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in The State
and Revolution, as do the SWP in their article.

It is hard to combine these facts and the SWP's comments with the claim that the "workers' state" is an instrument of class rule -- after all, Lenin is acknowledging that coercion
will be exercised against members of the working class as well. The question of course arises -- who decides what a "wavering" or "unstable" element is? Given their comments on the
role of the party and the need for the party to assume power, it will mean in practice whoever rejects the government's decisions (for example, strikers, local soviets which reject
central decrees and instructions, workers who vote for anarchists or parties other than the Bolshevik party in elections to soviets, unions and so on, socialists and anarchists,
etc.). Given a hierarchical system, Lenin's comment is simply a justification for state repression of its enemies (including elements within, or even the whole of, the working
class).

It could be argued, however, that workers could use the soviets to recall the government. However, this fails for two reasons.

Firstly, the Leninist state will be highly centralised, with power flowing from the top-down. This means that in order to revoke the government, all the soviets in all parts of
the country must, at the same time, recall their delegates and organise a national congress of soviets (which, we note, is not in permanent session). The local soviets are bound
to carry out the commands of the central government (to quote the Soviet constitution of 1918 -- they are to "carry out all orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet
power"). Any independence on their part would be considered "wavering" or an expression of "unstable" natures and so subject to "revolutionary coercion". In a highly centralised
system, the means of accountability is reduced to the usual bourgeois level -- vote in the general election every few years (which, in any case, can be annulled by the government
if its dislikes the "passing moods" expressed by them). As can be seen above, the Bolsheviks did disband soviets when they considered the wrong (i.e. "wavering" or "unstable")
elements had been elected to them and so a highly centralised state system cannot be responsive to real control from below.

Secondly, "revolutionary coercion" against "wavering" elements does not happen in isolation. It will encourage critical workers to keep quiet in case they, too, are deemed
"unstable" and become subject to "revolutionary" coercion. As a government policy it can have no other effect than deterring democracy.

Thus Leninist politics provides the rationale for eliminating even the limited role of soviets for electing the government they hold in that ideology. The Leninist conception of
workers' councils is purely instrumental. In 1907, Lenin argued that:

    "the Party . . . has never renounced its intention of utilising certain non-party organisations, such as the Soviets of Workers' Deputies . . . to extend Social-Democratic
    influence among the working class and to strengthen the Social-Democratic labour movement . . . the incipient revival creates the opportunity to organise or utilise non-party
    working-class institutions, such as Soviets . . . for the purpose of developing the Social-Democratic movement; at the same time the Social-Democratic Party organisations must
    bear in mind if Social-Democratic activities among the proletarian masses are properly, effectively and widely organised, such institutions may actually become superfluous."
    [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, pp. 209-10]

As can be seen from the experiences of Russia under Lenin, this perspective did not fundamentally change -- given a conflict between the councils and the party, the party always
came first and soviets simply superfluous.



15. Why is the SWP's support for centralisation anti-socialist?

The SWP continue:

    "Centralism is needed above all because the capitalist state is centralised. The police, media moguls, employers, the state bureaucracy and governments act in a concerted way
    to protect the system."

Very true. However, the SWP fail to analyse why the state is centralised. Simply put, the state is centralised to facilitate minority rule by excluding the mass of people from
taking part in the decision making processes within society. This is to be expected as social structures do not evolve by chance -- rather they develop to meet specific needs
and requirements. The specific need of the ruling class is to rule and that means marginalising the bulk of the population. Its requirement is for minority power and this is
transformed into the structure of the state and capitalist company. The SWP assume that centralisation is simply a tool without content. Rather, it is a tool that has been
fashioned to do a specific job, namely to exclude the bulk of the population from the decision making process. It is designed that way and can have no other result. For that reason
anarchists reject centralisation. As the justly famous Sonvillier Circular argued: "How could one expect an egalitarian society to emerge out of an authoritarian organisation? It
is impossible." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom, p. 61]

Thus Rudolf Rocker:

    "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." [Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 54]

Just as the capitalist state cannot be utilised by the working class for its own ends, capitalist/statist organisational principles such as appointment, autocratic management,
centralisation and delegation of power and so on cannot be utilised for social liberation. They are not designed to be used for that purpose (and, indeed, they were developed in
the first place to stop it and enforce minority rule!).

The implication of the SWP's argument is that centralisation is required for co-ordinated activity. Anarchists disagree. Yes, there is a need for co-ordination and joint activity,
but that must be created from below, in new ways that reflect the goals we are aiming for. During the Spanish Revolution anarchists organised militias to fight the fascists. One
was lead by anarchist militant Durruti. His military adviser, Pe'rez 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. 224]

Durruti's words effectively refute the SWP's flawed argument. We need to organise, co-ordinate, co-operate our activities but we cannot do so in bourgeois ways. We need to discover
new ways, based on libertarian ideas and not capitalist ones like centralisation.

Indeed, this conflict between the Leninist support for traditional forms of organisational structure and the new forms produced by workers in struggle came into conflict during the
Russian Revolution. One such area of conflict was the factory committee movement and its attempts at workers' self-management of production. As historian A.S. Smith summarises:

    "Implicit in the movement for workers' control was a belief that capitalist methods cannot be used for socialist ends. In their battle to democratise the factory, in their
    emphasis on the importance of collective initiatives by the direct producers in transforming the work situation, the factory committees had become aware -- in a partial and
    groping way, to be sure -- 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 . . . inscribed within their practice was a distinctive
    vision of socialism, central to which was workplace democracy.

    "Lenin believed that socialism could be built only on the basis of large-scale industry as developed by capitalism, with its specific types of productivity and social
    organisation of labour. Thus for him, capitalist methods of labour-discipline or one-man management were not necessarily incompatible with socialism. Indeed, he went so far as
    to consider them to be inherently progressive, failing to recognise that such methods undermined workers' initiative at the point of production. This was because Lenin believed
    that the transition to socialism was guaranteed, ultimately, not by the self-activity of workers, but by the 'proletarian' character of state power. . . There is no doubt that
    Lenin did conceive proletarian power in terms of the central state and lacked a conception of localising such power at the point of production." [Red Petrograd, pp. 261-2]

The outcome of this struggle was the victory of the Bolshevik vision (as it had state power to enforce it) and the imposition of apparently "efficient" capitalist methods of
organisation. However, the net effect of using (or, more correctly, imposing) capitalist organisations was, unsurprisingly, the re-introduction of capitalist social relations.
Little wonder the Russian Revolution quickly became just another form of capitalism -- state capitalism where the state appointed manager replaced the boss and the workers'
position remained identical. Lenin's attempts to centralise production simply replaced workers' power at the point of production with that of state bureaucrats.

We must point out the central fallacy of the SWP's argument. Essentially they are arguing you need to fight fire with fire. They argue that the capitalist class is centralised
and so, in order to defeat them, so must we. Unfortunately for the SWP, you do not put a fire out with fire, you put fire out with water. Therefore, to defeat centralised system
you need decentralised social organisation. Such decentralisation is required to include the bulk of the population in the revolutionary struggle and does not imply isolation. A
decentralised movement does not preclude co-ordination or co-operation but that co-ordination must come from below, based on federal structures, and not imposed from above.

So a key difference between anarchism and Marxism 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
Sonvillier Circular:

    "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]

Of course, Marx replied to this argument and, in so doing, 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 but that does not imply we should not try and organise in a socialist way in the here and now. Such
common sense, unfortunately, is lacking in Marx who instead decided to utter nonsense for a cheap polemical point.

Therefore, if we want a revolution which is more than just a change in who the boss is, we must create new forms of organisation and struggle which do not reproduce the traits of
the world we are fighting. To put out the fire of class society, we need the water of a classless society and so we should organise in a libertarian way, building the new world in
the shell of the old.



16. Why is the SWP wrong about the A16 Washington D.C. demo?

As an example of why Marxism is better than anarchism they give an example:

    "Protesters put up several roadblocks during the major anti-capitalist demonstration in Washington in April of this year. The police tried to clear them. The question arose of
    what the protesters should do.

    "Some wanted to try to maintain the roadblocks. Others thought the best tactic was to reorganise the protests into one demonstration. Instead of coming to a clear decision and
    acting on it, the key organiser of the whole event told people at each roadblock to do what they thought was right.

    "The resulting confusion weakened all the protests."

Firstly, we must point out that this argument is somewhat ironic coming from a party that ignored the agreed plan during the Prague anti-WTO demonstration and did "what they
thought was right" (see section 13). Indeed, the various anti-capitalist demonstrations have been extremely effective and have been organised in an anarchist manner thus refuting
the SWP.

Secondly, unfortunately for the SWP, they have the facts all wrong. The World Bank/IMF complex in Washington DC was extremely difficult to blockade. The police blocked over 50
blocks on the day of the demonstration to travel. DC has very wide streets. Many World Bank and IMF Delegates spent the night in those buildings, or came in early in the morning
long before sunrise. This calls into question whether a blockade was the best strategy considering the logistic details involved (the Blockade strategy was abandoned for the
Republican and Democratic Party Conference demonstrations). In addition to the blockades, there was an officially permitted rally blocks away from the action.

The tactical process worked in practice like this. While there was an original plan agreed to by consensus at the beginning of the blockades by all affinity groups, with groups
picking which intersection to occupy and which tactics to use, there was a great deal of flexibility as well. There were several flying columns that moved from intersection to
intersection reinforcing barricades and increasing numbers where it looked like police might charge. The largest of these was the Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist Bloc ("the Black
Bloc") made up mostly of class-struggle anarchists but included a number of other left libertarians (such as council communists and autonomists). The RACB officially maintained its
autonomy within the demonstration and worked with others when and where it could. The affinity groups of the RACB would come to quick decisions on what to do. Often, they would
quickly respond to the situation; usually their appearance was enough for the cops to fall back after a few tense moments.

By early afternoon, the various affinity groups manning the blockades were informed that the blockades had failed, and enough delegates had made it inside that the meeting
was continuing inside with only a short delay. So the question came of what to do next? There were varying opinions. Some affinity groups favoured maintaining their blockades
symbolically as an act of defiance and hoping to slow the dispersion of World Bank/IMF representatives as they left the meeting. Others wished to have a victory march around the
area. Others wanted to join the rally. Some wanted to march on the World Bank and try for an occupation. There was no consensus. After much discussion between the affinity groups,
a decision was reached.

The RACB was divided between two choices -- either join with the rally or march on the Bank. There was a lot of negotiation back and forth between affinity groups. A compromise was
reached. The RACB would move to each blockade in order and provide cover for those locked down to unlock and safely merge with the growing march so that attempts could be made the
next day do blockade. The march continued to swell as it made its way along the route, eventually merging with the crowd at the permitted demonstration.

A decision was made. Perhaps it wasn't the most militant. Perhaps it did not foresee that the next day would lack the numbers to even attempt a successful blockade. But arrests
on the demonstration were kept to a minimum, a large show of strength was put on and strong feelings of solidarity and camaraderie grew. The cops could only control a few square
blocks, the rest of the city was ours. And it was a decision that everyone had a part in making, and one that everyone could live with. It's called self-management, perhaps it
isn't always the fastest method of making decisions, but it is the best one if you desire freedom.

Of course, the last thing the SWP would want to admit is that anarchists led the victory march around Washington D.C. without a permit, without marshals, without many arrests
and a minimal amount of violence! Of all the recent demonstrations in the U.S. the black bloc was the largest and most well received at Washington. Moreover, that demonstration
showed that decentralised, federal organisation worked in practice. Each affinity group participated in the decision making process and an agreement reached between all involved.
Centralisation was not required, no centre imposed the decision. Rather than weaken the protests, decentralisation strengthened it by involving all in the decision making process.
Little wonder the SWP re-wrote history.



17. Why does the SWP's Washington example refute the SWP's own argument and not anarchism?

However, let us assume that the SWP's fictional account of the A16 demonstration (see last section) was, in fact, true. What does it actually mean? We must point out its
interesting logic. They argue that the protests had a "key organiser" which means they were centralised. They argue that the protestors looked to that person for direction.
Unfortunately that person could not come to a "clear decision" and instead handed back decision making to each roadblock. In other words, centralisation failed, not federalism.
Moreover, the state would have had a simple means to destroy the demonstration -- arrest the "key organiser." In a centralised system, without a centre, the whole structure
collapses -- without someone giving orders, nothing is done.

In a federal structure each roadblock would have sent a delegate to a council to co-ordinate struggle (which, we stress, was what actually did happen). To quote Bakunin, "there
will be a federation of the standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade . . . these deputies
being invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 155] In the SWP's version of history, the blockades did not
do this and so, unsurprisingly, without organisation, there was confusion. As an argument against anarchism it is useless. So the SWP's fictional example is an argument against
centralisation -- of placing decision-making power at the centre. In their story, faced with the task of co-ordinating actions which they had no knowledge of, the "key organiser"
could not act and by not having a federal structure, the roadblocks were weakened due to lack of co-ordination. In reality, a federal structure existed within the demonstration,
each roadblock and affinity group could take effective action instantly to counter the police, without waiting for instructions from the centre, as well as communicate what has
happening to other roadblocks and come to common agreements on what action to take. The Washington demonstration -- like the other anti-capitalist demonstrations -- showed the
effectiveness of anarchist principles, of decentralisation and federalism from the bottom up.

So the SWP's analysis of the Washington demonstration is faulty on two levels. Firstly, their account is not accurate. The demonstration was organised in a decentralised manner and
worked extremely well. Secondly, even if their account was not fiction, it proves the failure of centralisation, not federalism.

They draw a lesson from their fictional account:

    "The police, needless to say, did not 'decentralise' their decision making. They co-ordinated across the city to break the protests."

Such an analogy indicates the bourgeois and authoritarian nature of the SWP's politics. They do not understand that the capitalist state and workplace is centralised for a reason.
It is to concentrate power into the hands of a few, with the many reduced to mere order takers. It is the means by which bourgeois rule is enforced

Moreover, they seem to be arguing that if we followed the example of the bourgeois state, of the organisational structure of the police or the army, then we would be as "effective"
as they are. They are, in effect, arguing that the anti-capitalist movement should reproduce the regulated docility of the police force into its ranks, reproduce the domination of
a few bosses at the top over a mass of unquestioning automations at the bottom. 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 SWP prove him right.



18. Why is a "revolutionary party" a contradiction in terms?

They continue by arguing that "Anarchists say a revolutionary party is at best unnecessary and at worst another form of authoritarianism. But they cannot avoid the problems that a
revolutionary party addresses." In reality, while anarchists reject the "revolutionary" party, they do not reject the need for an anarchist federation to spread anarchist ideas,
convince others of our ideas and to give a lead during struggles. We reject the Bolshevik style "revolutionary party" simply because it is organised in a centralised, bourgeois,
fashion and so produces all the problems of capitalist society within so-called revolutionary organisations. As the anarchists of Trotwatch explain, such a party leaves much to be
desired:

    "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]

Such an organisation can never create a socialist society. In contrast, anarchists argue that socialist organisations should reflect as much as possible the future society we
are aiming to create. To build organisations which are statist/capitalistic in structure cannot do other than reproduce the very problems of capitalism/statism into them and so
undermine their liberatory potential. As Murray Bookchin puts it:

    "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 . . . Its membership is schooled in obedience . . . The party's leadership, in turn, is schooled in
    habits born of command, authority, manipulation . . . Its leaders . . . lose contact with the living situation below. The local groups, which know their own immediate situation
    better than any remote leaders, are obliged to subordinate their insights to directives from above. The leadership, lacking any direct knowledge of local problems, responds
    sluggishly and prudently. . .

    "The party becomes less efficient from a revolutionary point of view the more it seeks efficiency by means of hierarchy, cadres and centralisation. Although everyone marches
    in step, the orders are usually wrong, especially when events begin to move rapidly and take unexpected turns-as they do in all revolutions. The party is efficient in only one
    respect-in moulding society in its own hierarchical imagine if the revolution is successful. It recreates bureaucracy, centralisation and the state. It fosters the bureaucracy,
    centralisation and the state. It fosters the very social conditions which justify this kind of society. Hence, instead of 'withering away,' the state controlled by the
    'glorious party' preserves the very conditions which 'necessitate' the existence of a state -- and a party to 'guard' it.

    "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 . . .

    "[T]he Bolshevik leadership was ordinarily extremely conservative, a trait that Lenin had to fight throughout 1917 -- first in his efforts to reorient the Central Committee
    against the provisional government (the famous conflict over the 'April Theses'), later in driving the Central Committee toward 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.'" [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, pp. 194-9]

Thus the example of the "successful" Russian Revolution indicates the weakness of Leninism -- Lenin had to fight the party machine he helped create in order to get it do anything
revolutionary. Hardly a good example of a "revolutionary" party.

But, then again, the SWP know that anarchists do not reject the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists to influence the class struggle. As they argue, "Anarchism's attempts
to deal with them have been far less effective and less democratic." The question is not of one of whether revolutionaries should organise together but how they do this. And
as we shall see in the next four sections, the SWP's examples of revolutionary anarchist organisations are either unique and so cannot be generalised from (Bakunin's ideas on
revolutionary organisation), or false (the F.A.I. was not organised in the way the SWP claim). Indeed, the simple fact is that the SWP ignore the usual ways anarchists organise as
anarchists and yet try and draw conclusions about anarchism from their faulty examples.



19. Do anarchists operate "in secret"?

They continue:

    "All the major anarchist organisations in history have been centralised but have operated in secret."

It is just as well they say "all the major anarchist organisations," it allows them to ignore counter-examples. We can point to hundreds of anarchist organisations that are/were
not secret. For example, the Italian Anarchist Union (IAU) was a non-secret organisation. Given that the IAU had around 20 000 members in 1920, we wonder by what criteria the SWP
excludes it from being a "major anarchist organisation"? After all, estimates of the membership of the F.A.I. (one of the SWP's two "major" anarchist organisations) vary from
around 6 000 to around 30 000. Bakunin's "Alliance" (the other SWP example) amounted to, at most, under 100. In terms of size, the IAU was equal to the F.A.I. and outnumbered the
"Alliance" considerably. Why was the UAI not a "major anarchist organisation"?

Another, more up to date, example is the French Anarchist Federation which organises today. It as a weekly paper and groups all across France as well as in Belgium. That is not
secret and is one of the largest anarchist organisations existing today (and so, by anyone's standards "a major anarchist organisation"). We wonder why the SWP excludes it? Simply
because they know their generalisation is false?

Therefore, as can be seen, the SWP's claim is simply a lie. Few anarchist organisations have been secret. Those that have been secret have done so when conditions demanded it (for
example, during periods of repression and when operating in countries with authoritarian governments). Just as Marxist organisations have done. For example, the Bolsheviks were
secret for great periods of time under Tsarism and, ironically enough, the Trotskyist-Zinovievist United Opposition had to resort to secret and conspiratorial organisation to
reach the Russian Communist Party rank and file in the 1920s. Therefore, to claim that anarchists have some sort of monopoly of secret organising is simply a lie -- Marxists, like
anarchists, have sometimes organised in secret when they have been forced to by state repression or likelihood of state repression. It is not a principle but, rather, sometimes a
necessity. As anyone with even a basic grasp of anarchist history would know.

Similarly for the SWP's claims that "all the major anarchist organisations in history have been centralised." Such a claim is also a lie, as we shall prove in the sections 20 and
22.



20. Why is the SWP wrong about Bakunin's organisation?

As an example of a "major anarchist organisation" the SWP point to Bakunin and the organisations he created:

    "The 19th century theorist of anarchism Mikhail Bakunin's organisation had a hierarchy of committees, with half a dozen people at the top, which were not under the democratic
    control of its members."

Firstly, we have to wonder why anyone would have wanted to join Bakunin's group if they had no say in the organisation. Also, given that communication in the 19th century was
extremely slow, such an organisation would have spent most of its time waiting for instructions from above. Why would anyone want to join such a group? Simple logic undermines the
SWP's argument.

Secondly, we should also point out that the Bolshevik party itself was a secret organisation for most of its life in Tsarist Russia. Bakunin, an exile from that society, would
have been aware, like the Bolsheviks, of the necessity of secret organising. Moreover, having spent a number of years imprisoned by the Tsar, Bakunin would not have desired to
end up back in prison after escaping from Siberia to the West. In addition, given that the countries in which anarchists were operating at the time were not democracies, in the
main, a secret organisation would have been considered essential. 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] The SWP ignore
the historical context.

Thirdly, the reality of Bakunin's organisation is slightly different from the SWP's claims. We have discussed this issue in great detail in section J.3.7 of the FAQ. However, it
is useful to indicate the type of organisation Bakunin thought was necessary to aid the revolution. If we do, it soon becomes clear that the SWP's claim that it was "not under
the democratic control of its members" is not true. To do so we shall quote from his letter to the Russian Nihilist Sergy Nechayev in which he explains the differences in their
ideas. He discusses the "principles and mutual conditions" for a "new society" of revolutionaries in Russia (noting that this was an "outline of a plan" which "must be developed,
supplemented, and sometimes altered according to circumstances"):

    "Equality among all members and the unconditional and absolute solidarity -- one for all and all for one -- with the obligation for each and everyone to help each other,
    support and save each other. . .

    "Complete frankness among members and proscription of any Jesuitical methods in their relationships . . . When a member has to say anything against another member, this must be
    done at a general meeting and in his presence. General fraternal control of each other . . .

    "Everyone's personal intelligence vanished like a river in the sea in the collective intelligence and all members obey unconditionally the decisions of the latter.

    "All members are equal; they know all their comrades and discuss and decide with them all the most important and essential questions bearing on the programme of the society and
    the progress of the cause. The decision of the general meeting is absolute law. . .

    "The society chooses an Executive Committee from among their number consisting of three or five members who should organise the branches of the society and manage its
    activities in all the regions of the [Russian] Empire on the basis of the programme and general plan of action adopted by the decision of the society as a whole. . .

    "This Committee is elected for an indefinite term. If the society . . . the People's Fraternity is satisfied with the actions of the Committee, it will be left as such; and
    while it remains a Committee each member . . . and each regional group have to obey it unconditionally, except in such cases where the orders of the Committee contradict either
    the general programme of the principle rules, or the general revolutionary plan of action, which are known to everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion
    of them. . .

    "In such a case members of the group must halt the execution of the Committee's orders and call the Committee to judgement before the general meeting . . . If the general
    meeting is discontented with the Committee, it can always substitute another one for it. . .

    "Any member or any group is subject to judgement by the general meeting .                                                                                                      .
    .

    "No new Brother can be accepted without the consent of all or at the very least three-quarters of all the members. . .

    "The Committee divides the members . . . among the Regions and constitutes Regional groups of leaderships from them . . . Regional leadership is charged with organising the
    second tier of the society -- the Regional Fraternity, on the basis of the same programme, the same rules, and the same revolutionary plan. . .

    "All members of the Regional Fraternity know each other, but do not know of the existence of the People's Fraternity. They only know that there exists a Central Committee which
    hands down to them their orders for execution through Regional Committee which has been set up by it, i.e. by the Central Committee . . .

    "Each Regional Committee will set up District Committees from members of the Regional Fraternity and will appoint and replace them. . . .

    "District Committees can, if necessary and only with the consent of the Regional Committee, set up a third tier of the organisation -- District Fraternity with a programme and
    regulations as near as possible to the general programme and regulations of the People's Fraternity. The programme and regulations of the District Fraternity will not come into
    force until they are discussed and passed by the general meeting of the Regional Fraternity and have been confirmed by the Regional Committee. . .

    "Jesuitical control . . . are totally excluded from all three tiers of the secret organisation . . . The strength of the whole society, as well as the morality, loyalty, energy
    and dedication of each member, is based exclusively and totally on the shared truth, sincerity and trust, and on the open fraternal control of all over each one." [cited by
    Michael Confino, Daughter of a Revolutionary, pp. 264-6]

As can be seen, while there is much in Bakunin's ideas that few anarchists would agree to, it cannot be said that it was not under the "democratic control of its members." The
system of committees is hardly libertarian but neither is it the top-down dictatorship the SWP argue it was. For example, the central committee was chosen by the "general meeting"
of the members, which also decided upon the "programme of the society and the progress of the cause." Its "decision" was "absolute law" and the central committee could be replaced
by it. Moreover, the membership could ignore the decisions of the central committee if it "contradict[ed] either the general programme of the principle rules, or the general
revolutionary plan of action, which are known to everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion of them." Each tier of the organisation had the same "programme
and regulations." Anarchists today would agree that Bakunin's plan was extremely flawed. The appointment of committees from above is hardly libertarian, even given that each tier
had the same "regulations" and so general meetings of each Fraternity, for example. However, the SWP's summary of Bakunin's ideas, as can be seen, is flawed.

Given that no other anarchist group or federation operated in this way, it is hard to generalise from Bakunin's flawed ideas on organisation to a conclusion about anarchism. But,
of course, this is what the SWP do -- and such a generalisation is simply a lie. The example of the F.A.I., the SWP's other example, indicates how most anarchist organisations work
in practice -- namely, a decentralised federation of autonomous groups (see section 22).

Moreover, as we will indicate in the next section, the SWP have little reason to attack Bakunin's ideas. This is because Lenin had similar (although not identical) ones on the
question of organising revolutionaries in Tsarist Russia and because the SWP are renown for their leadership being secretive, centralised, bureaucratic and top-down.

In summary, anarchists agree with the SWP that Bakunin's ideas are not to be recommended while pointing out that the likes of the SWP fail to provide an accurate account of their
internal workings (i.e. they were more democratic than the SWP suggest), the role Bakunin saw for them in the labour movement and revolution or the historical context in which they
were shaped. Moreover, we also argue that their comments against Bakunin, ironically, apply with equal force to their own party which is renown, like all Bolshevik-style parties,
as being undemocratic, top-down and authoritarian. We turn to this issue in the next section.



21. Why is the SWP's attack on Bakunin's organisation ironic?

That the SWP attack Bakunin's organisational schema (see last section) is somewhat ironic. After all, the Bolshevik party system had many of the features of Bakunin's
organisational plan. If Bakunin, quite rightly, should be attacked for certain aspects of these ideas, then so must Bolshevik parties like the SWP.

For example, Lenin argued in favour of centralisation and secrecy in his work What is to be Done?. In this work he argued as follows:

    "The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a 'dozen' experienced revolutionaries, no less
    professionally trained than the police, will centralise all the secret side of the work -- prepare leaflets, work out approximate plans and appoint bodies of leaders for each
    urban district, for each factory district and for each educational institution, etc. [our emphasis] (I know that exception will be taken to my 'undemocratic' views, but I shall
    reply to this altogether unintelligent objection later on.) The centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather
    increase the extent and the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations that are intended for wide membership and which, therefore, can be as loose and
    as public as possible, such as trade unions; workers' circles for self-education and the reading illegal literature, and socialist and also democratic, circles for all other
    sections of the population, etc., etc. We must have as large a number as possible of such organisations having the widest possible variety of functions, but it would be absurd
    and dangerous to confuse them with the organisation of revolutionaries, to erase the line of demarcation between them, to make still more the masses' already incredibly hazy
    appreciation of the fact that in order to 'serve' the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such
    people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries." [The Essential Lenin, p. 149]

And:

    "The only serious organisational principle the active workers of our movement can accept is strict secrecy, strict selection of members, and the training of professional
    revolutionaries. If we possessed these qualities, something even more than 'democratism' would be guaranteed to us, namely, complete, comradely, mutual confidence among
    revolutionaries. And this is absolutely essential for us, because in Russia it is useless thinking that democratic control can substitute for it." [our emphasis, Op. Cit., p.
    162]

Thus we have Lenin advocating "strict secrecy, strict selection of members" as well as a centralised party which will "appoint bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each
factory district and for each educational institution." The parallels with Bakunin's system are clear and are predominately the result of the identical political conditions both
revolutionaries experienced. While anarchists are happy to indicate and oppose the non-libertarian aspects of Bakunin's ideas, it is hard for the likes of the SWP to attack Bakunin
while embracing Lenin's ideas on the party, justifying their more "un-democratic" aspects as a result of the objective conditions of Tsarism.

Similar top-down perspectives can be seen from Bolshevism in Power. The 1918 constitution of the Soviet Union argued that local soviets were to "carry out all orders of the
respective higher organs of the soviet power." In 1919, the Bolshevik's Eighth Party Congress strengthened party discipline. As Maurice Brinton notes, the "Congress ruled that
each decision must above all be fulfilled. Only after this is an appeal to the corresponding Party organ permissible." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 55] He quotes the
resolution:

    "The whole matter of posting of Party workers is in the hands of the Central Committee. Its decisions are binding for everyone." [Op. Cit., pp. 55-6]

This perspective was echoed in the forerunner of the SWP, the International Socialists. In September 1968, the Political Committee of International Socialism submitted the
"Perspectives for I.S." Point 4 said:

    "Branches must accept directives from the Centre, unless they fundamentally disagree with them, in which case they should try to accord with them, while demanding an open
    debate on the matter." [quoted by Brinton, Op. Cit. , p. 55f]

The parallels with Bakunin's ideas are clear (see last section). However, it is to Bakunin's credit that he argued that while "each regional group have to obey it [the central
committee] unconditionally" he recognised that there existed "cases where the orders of the Committee contradict either the general programme of the principle rules, or the general
revolutionary plan of action, which are known to everybody as all . . . have participated equally in the discussion of them." when this happened, "members of the group must halt
the execution of the Committee's orders and call the Committee to judgement before the general meeting . . . If the general meeting is discontented with the Committee, it can
always substitute another one for it." Thus, rather than the unquestioning obedience of the Bolshevik party, who have to obey, then complain, the members of Bakunin's group did not
negate their judgement and could refuse to carry out orders.

Therefore, the SWP have a problem. On the one hand, they denounce Bakunin's ideas of a centralised, secret top-down organisation of revolutionaries. On the other, the
party structure that Lenin recommends is also a tightly disciplined, centralised, top-down structure with a membership limited to those who are willing to be professional
revolutionaries. They obviously want to have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately for them, they cannot. If they attack Bakunin, they must attack Lenin, not to do so is
hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that the parallels between Bakunin's and Lenin's organisational ideas cannot be understood without recognising that both revolutionaries were operating in an
autocratic state under conditions of complete illegality, with a highly organised political police trying to infiltrate and destroy any attempt to change the regime. Once this
is recognised, the SWP's comments can be seen to be hypocritical in the extreme. Nor can their feeble attempt to use Bakunin to generalise about all anarchist organisations be
taken seriously as Bakunin's organisations were not "major" nor were his ideas on secret organisation and organising followed after his death. They were a product of Bakunin's
experiences in Tsarist Russian and not generic to anarchism (as the SWP know fine well).

Moreover, many people leave the SWP due to its undemocratic, authoritarian and bureaucratic nature. The comments by one group of ex-SWP dissidents indicate the hypocrisy of the
SWP's attack on Bakunin:

    "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.

    [. . .]

    "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." [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. [Op. Cit.] As can be seen, the SWP have little grounds on which to attack Bakunin given this damning account of its internal workings.

Other dissidents argue the same point. In 1991 members in Southampton SWP asked "When was the last time a motion or slate to conference was opposed?" and pointed out:

    "The CC usually stays the same or changes by one member. Most of the changes to its composition are made between Conferences. None of the CC's numerous decisions made over the
    preceding year are challenged or brought to account. Even the Pre-Conference bulletins contain little disagreements."

They stress that:

    "There is real debate within the SWP, but the framework for discussion is set by the Central Committee. The agenda's national events . . . are set by the CC or its appointees
    and are never challenged . . . Members can only express their views through Conference and Council to the whole party indirectly." [quoted by Trotwatch, Carry On Recruiting!,
    p. 39 and pp. 40-1]

Therefore, the SWP does not really have a leg to stand on. While Bakunin's ideas on organisation are far from perfect, the actual practice of the SWP places their comments in
context. They attack Bakunin while acting in similar ways while claiming they do not. Anarchists do not hold up Bakunin's ideas on how anarchists should organise themselves as
examples to be followed nor as particularly democratic (in contrast to his ideas on how the labour movement and revolution should be organised, which we do recommend) -- as the SWP
know. However, the SWP claim they are a revolutionary party and yet their organisational practices are deeply anti-democratic with a veneer of (bourgeois) democracy. The hypocrisy
is clear.

Ironically, the ISG dissidents who attack the SWP for being "bureaucratic centralist" note 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 it. 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.

One last point. While some may argue that the obvious parallels between Bakunin's ideas and Lenin's should embarrass anarchists, most anarchists disagree. This is for four reasons.

Firstly, anarchists are not "Bakuninists" or followers of "Bakuninism." This means that we do not blindly follow the ideas of individuals, rather we take what we find useful and
reject the flawed and non-libertarian aspects of their ideas. Therefore, if we think Bakunin's specific ideas on how revolutionaries should organise are flawed and not libertarian
then we reject them while keeping the bulk of Bakunin's useful and libertarian ideas as inspiration. We do not slavishly follow individuals or their ideas but apply critical
judgement and embrace what we find useful and reject what we consider nonsense.

Secondly, anarchism did not spring fully formed out of Bakunin's (or Proudhon's or Kropotkin's or whoever's) mind. We expect individuals to make mistakes, not to be totally
consistent, not totally break with their background. Bakunin clearly did not manage to break completely with his background as a political exile and an escapee from Tsarist Russia.
Hence his arguments and support for secret organisation -- his experiences, like Lenin's, pushed him in that direction. Moreover, we should also remember that Russia was not
the only country which the anarchist and labour movements were repressed during this time. In France, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, the International was made illegal.
The Spanish section of the International had been proscribed in 1872 and the central and regional authorities repressed it systematically from the summer of 1873, forcing the
organisation to remain underground between 1874 and 1881. As can be seen, the SWP forget the historical context when attacking Bakunin's secrecy.

Thirdly, Bakunin did not, like Lenin, think that "socialist consciousness" had to be introduced into the working class. He argued that due to the "economic struggle of labour and
capital" a worker who joined the International Workers' Association "would inevitably discover, through the very force of circumstances and through the develop of this struggle,
the political, socialist, and philosophical principles of the International." He thought that working class people were "socialists without knowing it" as "their most basic
instinct and their social situation makes them . . . earnestly and truly socialist . . . They are socialist because of all the conditions of their material existence and all
the needs of their being. . . The workers lack neither the potential for socialist aspirations nor their actuality; they lack socialist thought." Thus the "germs" of "socialist
thought" are to "be found in the instinct of every earnest worker. The goal . . . is to make the worker fully aware of what he wants." The method? The class struggle itself --
"the International relies on the collective experience he gains in its bosom, especially on the progress of the collective struggle of the workers against the bosses." [The Basic
Bakunin, p. 100 and pp. 101-3]

Bakunin did not deny the importance of those who already are socialists to organise themselves and "influence" those who were not socialists so that in "critical moments [they
will] . . . follow the International's lead." However, this influence was not to inject socialist ideas into the working class but rather to aid their development by the
"propagation of its [the International] ideas and . . . the organisation of its members' natural effect on the masses." As can be seen, Bakunin's ideas on this subject differ
considerably from Lenin's. [Op. Cit., p. 139 and p. 140]

Unsurprisingly, the programme of the revolutionary organisation had to reflect the instincts and needs of the working population and must never be imposed on them. As he
argued, the working masses were "not a blank page on which any secret society can write whatever it wishes . . . It has worked out, partly consciously, probably three-quarters
unconsciously, its own programme which the secret society must get to know or guess and to which it must adapt itself." He stresses that once the state "is destroyed . . . the
people will rise . . . for their own [ideal]" and anyone "who tries to foist his own programme on the people will be left holding the baby." [quoted in Daughter of a Revolutionary,
Michael Confino (ed.), p. 252, p. 254 and p. 256] As he stresses, libertarian socialist ideas come from the masses and not from outside them:

    "In opposition to . . . oppressive statist orientations . . . an entirely new orientation finally arose from the depths of the proletariat itself . . . It proceeds directly to
    the abolition of all exploitation and all political or juridical as well as governmental and bureaucratic oppression, in other words, to the abolition of all classes . . . and
    the abolition of their last buttress, the state.

    "That is the program of social revolution." [Statism and Anarchy, pp. 48-9]

Therefore, for Bakunin, the revolutionary organisation did not play the same role as for Lenin. It existed to aid the development of socialist consciousness within the working
class, not inject that consciousness into a mass who cannot develop it by their own efforts. The difference is important as Lenin's theory justified the substitution of party power
for workers power, the elimination of democracy and the domination of the party over the class it claimed to represent. Bakunin, recognising that socialist ideas are "instinctive"
in the working class due to their position in society and their everyday experiences, could not do this as the organisation existed to clarify these tendencies, not create them in
the first place and inject them into the masses.

Lastly, the role the organisation plays in the workers' movement and revolution are distinctly different. As Bakunin constantly stressed, the secret organisation must never take
state power. As he put it, the "main purpose and task of the organisation" 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, Op. Cit., 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]

As can be seen, instead of seeking state power, as Lenin's party desired, Bakunin's would seek "natural influence" rather than "official influence." As we argued in section J.3.7,
this meant influencing the class struggle and revolution within the mass assemblies of workers' associations and communes and in their federations. Rather than seek state power and
official leadership positions, as the Leninist party does, Bakunin's organisation rejected the taking of hierarchical positions in favour of working at the base of the organisation
and providing a "leadership of ideas" rather than of people (see section J.3.6). While Bakunin's organisational structures are flawed from a libertarian perspective (although more
democratic than Marxists claim) the way it works within popular organisations is libertarian and in stark contrast with the Leninist position which sees these bodies as stepping
stones for party power.

Therefore, Bakunin rejected key Leninist ideas and so cannot be considered as a forefather of Bolshevism in spite of similar organisational suggestions. The similarity in structure
is due to a similarity in political conditions in Russia and not similarities in political ideas. If we look at Bakunin's ideas on social revolution and the workers' movement we
see a fully libertarian perspective -- of a movement from the bottom-up, based on the principles of direct action, self-management and federalism. Anarchists since his death have
applied these ideas to the specific anarchist organisation as well, rejecting the non-libertarian elements of Bakunin's ideas which the SWP correctly (if somewhat hypocritically
and dishonestly) denounce.



22. Was the F.A.I. a "centralised and secret" organisation that shunned "open debate and common struggle"?

They move onto Spanish Anarchism:

    "The anarchist organisation inside the Spanish C.N.T., the F.A.I., was centralised and secret. A revolutionary party thrives on open debate and common struggle with wider
    groups of workers."

We discuss this Marxist myth in more detail in section 3 of the appendix on "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism". However a few points are worth making. The F.A.I., regardless of what
the SWP assert, was not centralised. It was a federation of autonomous affinity groups. As one member put it:

    "It was never its aim to act as a leadership or anything of the sort -- to begin with they had no slogans, nor was any line laid down, let alone any adherence to any
    hierarchical structure . . . This is what outside historians ought to grasp once and for all: that neither Durruti, nor Ascaso, nor Garcia Oliver -- to name only the great
    C.N.T. spokesmen -- issued any watchwords to the 'masses,' let alone delivered any operational plan or conspiratorial scheme to the bulk of the C.N.T. membership."

He stresses that:

    "Each F.A.I. group thought and acted as it deemed fit, without bothering about what the others might be thinking or deciding . . . they had no . . . opportunity or jurisdiction
    . . . to foist a party line upon the grass-roots." [Francisco Carrasquer, quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p. 25 and p. 28]

Murray Bookchin paints a similar picture:

    "The F.A.I. . . . was more loosely jointed as an organisation than many of its admirers and critics seem to recognise. It has no bureaucratic apparatus, no membership cards
    or dues, and no headquarters with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . . They jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity groups from the authority of higher
    organisational bodies-a state of mind hardly conducive to the development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation.

    "The F.A.I., moreover, was not a politically homogeneous organisation which followed a fixed 'line' like the Communists and many Socialists. It had no official program by which
    all faistas could mechanically guide their actions." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 224]

Stuart Christie argues that the decentralised nature of the F.A.I. helped it survive the frequent repression directed against it and the C.N.T:

    "The basic units of the F.A.I. were . . . small autonomous affinity groups of anarchist militants. This cohesive quasi-cellular form of association had evolved, gradually,
    over the period of time it takes for relationships to be established and for mutual trust to grow. The affinity groups consisted, usually, of between three and 10 members
    bound by ties of friendship, and who shared well defined aims and agreed methods of struggle. Once such a group had come into existence it could, if it so wished, solicit
    affiliation to the F.A.I. . . The affinity groups were also highly resistant to police infiltration. Even if filtration did occur, or police agents did manage to set up their
    own 'affinity' groups it would not have been a particularly efficient means of intelligence gathering; the atomic structure of the F.A.I. meant there was no central body to
    provide an overview of the movement as a whole." [We, the Anarchists!, p. 28]

He stresses its decentralised nature:

    "Above all, it was not a representative body and involved no delegation of power either within the affinity groups or in the regional or national administrative bodies to
    empower those bodies to make decisions on behalf of the collectivity. Drawing on many years of revolutionary experience the F.A.I. was firmly rooted in federal principles
    and structured in such a way that its co-ordinating function did not deprive its constituent members of their autonomous power. . . . In situations where it was necessary
    for delegates to take decisions, e.g. at plenary meetings during times of crisis or clandestinity, those decisions were required to be ratified by the whole membership who,
    in effect, constituted the administration. . . The groups in a city or town constituted a Local Federation while the rural groups, combined, formed a District Federation.
    These were administered by a secretariat and a committee composed of one mandated delegate from each affinity group. The Local and District Federations were obliged to convene
    regular assemblies of all groups in its area. . . Local and District Federations constituted a Regional Federation. These, in turn, were co-ordinated by a Peninsular Committee.
    None of these committees, local, district, regional or national, could be described as having a bureaucratic apparatus. Nor did they wield executive power of any description.
    Their function was purely administrative." [Op. Cit., pp. 29-30]

Therefore, the claim that the F.A.I. was a centralised organisation is simply false. Rather it was a federation of autonomous groups, as can be seen (see also section 3 of the
appendix on "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism" for more discussion on this topic).

Was the F.A.I. a "secret" organisation? When it was founded in 1927, Spain was under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and so it was illegal and secret by necessity. As Stuart
Christie correctly notes, "[a]s an organisation publicly committed to the overthrow of the dictatorship, the F.A.I. functioned, from 1927 to 1931, as an illegal rather than a
secret organisation. From the birth of the Republic in 1931 onwards, the F.A.I. was simply an organisation which, until 1937, refused to register as an organisation as required by
Republican Law." [We, the Anarchists!, p. 24] Thus it was illegal rather than secret. As one anarchist militant asked, "[i]f it was secret, how come I was able to attend F.A.I.
meetings without ever having joined or paid dues to the 'specific' organisation?" [Francesco Carrasquer, quoted by Christie, Op. Cit., p. 24]

Moreover, given the periods of repression suffered by the Spanish libertarian movement throughout its history (including being banned and forced underground) being an illegal
organisation made perfect sense. The anarchist movement was made illegal a number of times. Nor did the repression end during the Republic of 1931-6. This means that for the
F.A.I. to be illegal was a sensible thing to do, particularly after failed revolutionary attempts resulted in massive arrests and the closing of union halls. Again, the SWP ignore
historical context and so mislead the reader.

Did the F.A.I. ignore "open debate and common struggle." No, of course not. The members of the F.A.I. were also members of the C.N.T. The C.N.T. was based around mass assemblies
in which all members could speak. It was here that members of the F.A.I. took part in forming C.N.T. policy along with other C.N.T. members. Anarchists in the C.N.T. who were not
members of the F.A.I. indicate this. Jose Borras Casacarosa notes that "[o]ne has to recognise that the F.A.I. did not intervene in the C.N.T. from above or in an authoritarian
manner as did other political parties in the unions. It did so from the base through militants . . . the decisions which determined the course taken by the C.N.T. were taken under
constant pressure from these militants." Jose Campos notes that F.A.I. militants "tended to reject control of confederal committees and only accepted them on specific occassions
. . . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, the other F.A.I. members would support it, usually successfully. It was the individual standing of the faista in open assembly."
[quoted by Stuart Christie, Op. Cit., p. 62] As Francisco Ascaso (friend of Durruti and an influential anarchist militant in the C.N.T. and F.A.I. in his own right) put it:

    "There is not a single militant who as a 'F.A.I.ista' intervenes in union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person. I pay my dues to the workers' union and when I
    intervene at union meetings I do it as someone who us exploited, and with the right which is granted me by the card in my possession, as do the other militants, whether they
    belong to the F.A.I. or not." [cited by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]

This meant that it was at union meetings and congresses where policies and the program for the movement were argued out:

    "[D]elegates, whether or not they were members of the F.A.I., were presenting resolutions adopted by their unions at open membership meetings. Actions taken at the congress
    had to be reported back to their unions at open meetings, and given the degree of union education among the members, it was impossible for delegates to support personal,
    non-representative positions." [Juan Gomez Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the F.A.I., p. 121]

As can be seen, open debate with their fellow workers in the union assemblies. In this they followed Bakunin's arguments that anarchist organisation "rules out any idea of
dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power" and it "will promote the Revolution only through the natural but never official influence of all members of the Alliance."
This influence would be exerted in the union assemblies, as the union members "could only defend their rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general
membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees more than these popular assemblies. . . In these great meetings of the sections, the items on the agenda was
amply discussed and the most progressive opinion prevailed. . ." This would ensure that the assemblies had "real autonomy" and actually were the real power in the organisation. Any
committees would be made up of "delegates who conscientiously fulfilled all their obligations to their respective sections as stipulated in the statues," "reporting regularly to
the membership the proposals made and how they voted" and "asking for further instructions (plus instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates)" [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 154, p. 387
and p. 247]

The anarchist revolution would be organised in an identical fashion, and, in Bakunin's words, "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 delegations . . . [who] will set out
to administer public services, not to rule over peoples." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 172]

As can be seen, the F.A.I. (like all anarchists) influenced the class struggle and revolution via their natural influence in winning debates with their fellow workers in union
assemblies. They did not seek power but rather influence for their ideas. To claim otherwise, to claim that anarchists reject open debate with their fellow workers is false.
Instead of seeking to power -- and so limiting debates to during elections -- anarchists argue that people must control their own organisations (and so the revolution) directly and
all the time. This means, as can be seen, we encourage open debate and discussion far more than those, like the SWP, who seek centralised political power for themselves. In such a
system, the only people who debate regularly are the members of the government -- everyone else is just a voter and an order taker.



23. Do anarchists wait for "spontaneous upsurges by workers"?

After lying about the F.A.I., they move on to lying about anarchist theory:

    "Anarchists instead look to spontaneous upsurges by workers. In the struggle anarchists will declare themselves and urge the workers on. They hope this will lead to the
    toppling of capitalism. History is full of mass struggles which have been able to win significant gains, but which have not had a clear leadership that can carry the struggle
    over to victory against capitalism."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Their own article exposes their lies. They mention the C.N.T., which was organised in an anarchist way and in which anarchists were heavily
involved. Anarchists from Bakunin onward have all argued in favour of organising as anarchists as well as organising workers and fighting for reforms in the here and now. For
Bakunin, "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." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139] He stressed the importance of anarchists being involved in unions as well as union struggle for reforms by direct action:

    "What policy should the International [Workers' Association] follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .
    the International will give labour unrest in all countries an essentially economic character, with the aim of reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of the
    association of the working masses . . . It will [also] propagandise its principles . . ." [Op. Cit., p. 109]

Indeed, he saw the labour movement as the means to create a socialist society:

    "The masses are a force, or at least the essential elements of a force. What do they lack? They lack two things which up till now constituted the power of all government:
    organisation and knowledge.

    "The organisation of the International [Workers' Association], having for its objective not the creation of new despotisms but the uprooting of all domination, will take on an
    essentially different character from the organisation of the State. . . But what is the organisation of the masses? . . . It is the organisation by professions and trades . . .

    "The organisation of the trade sections and their representation in the Chambers of Labour . . . bear in themselves the living seeds of the new society which is to replace the
    old world. They are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future itself." [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 254-5]

All anarchists have stressed the importance of working in and outside the labour movement to gain influence for anarchist ideas of direct action, solidarity, self-management and
federalism in the here and now, rather than waiting for a "spontaneous uprising" to occur. As Kropotkin argued, "Revolutionary Anarchist Communist propaganda with Labour Unions
had always been a favourite mode of action in the Federalist [or libertarian] . . . section of the International Working Men's Association." [Act For Yourselves, p. 119] Malatesta
makes the same point:

    "anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement towards the realisation of our ideas. But
    such influence must be won by doing more and better than others, and will only be useful if won in that way.

    "Today we must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a common action. We must act within the labour movement to prevent it being limited to and
    corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small improvements compatible with the capitalist system; and we must act in such a way that it contributes to preparing for a complete
    social transformation. We must work with the unorganised, and perhaps unorganisable, masses to awaken a spirit of revolt and the desire and hope for a free and happy life. We
    must initiate and support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers. We
    must, in short, prepare, and prepare ourselves, morally and materially, for the revolutionary act which will open the way to the future." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 109]

Therefore, as can be seen, the SWP's assertions are totally at odds with the actual ideas of anarchists, as would be known by anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchist
theory. After all, if spontaneous uprisings were sufficient in themselves we would be living in an anarchist society. As Bakunin argued "if instinct alone had been sufficient
for the liberation of peoples, they would have long since freed themselves." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 254] This explains why anarchists organise as anarchists in groups and
federations to influence the class struggle. We are aware of the need for revolutionaries to organise to influence the class struggle, spread anarchist ideas and tactics and
present the case for revolutionary change. An anarchist society will not come about by accident, it must be consciously desired and created by the mass of the population. As
Kropotkin argued:

    "Communist organisations . . . must be the work of all, a natural growth, a product of the constructive genius of the great mass. Communism cannot be imposed from above; it
    could not live even for a few months if the constant and daily co-operation of all did not uphold it. It must be free." [ Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 140]

So, clearly, anarchists see the importance of working class organisation and struggle in the here and now. Anarchists are active in industrial disputes and (as the SWP note) the
anti-globalisation movement and were heavily involved in the anti-poll-tax and anti-Criminal Justice Act struggles in the UK, for example. The role of anarchists is not to wait
for "upsurges" but rather to encourage them by spreading our ideas and encouraging workers to organise and fight their bosses and the state. It is for this reason anarchists form
groups and federations, to influence workers today rather than waiting for a "spontaneous uprising" to occur. Moreover, it is quite ironic that the SWP say that anarchists wait
for upsurges before declaring themselves to the masses. After all, that is what the SWP do. They turn up at picket lines and try and sell their paper and party to the strikers.
Obviously, if anarchist do this, it is bad, if the SWP do it, then it is "revolutionary."

Therefore, rather than believing in or waiting for "spontaneous upsurges" anarchists, like the SWP, spread their message, try and convince people to become revolutionaries. That is
why there are numerous anarchist federations across the world, involved in numerous struggles and working class organisations, with magazines, papers and leaflets being produced
and distributed. Anarchists stress the importance of winning people over to anarchist ideas and of giving a "lead" in struggle rather than as a "leadership" (which implies a
hierarchical relationship between the mass of people and a group of leaders). To state otherwise, to argue we wait for spontaneous uprisings, is simply a lie.

Anarchist organisations see themselves in the role of aiders, not leaders. As Voline argued, the politically aware minority "should intervene. But, in every place and under all
circumstances, . . . [they] should freely participate in the common work, as true collaborators, not as dictators. It is necessary that they especially create an example, and
employ themselves. . . without dominating, subjugating, or oppressing anyone. . . Accordingly to the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves, who, by means of
the various class organisations, factory committees, industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated. . . should apply themselves everywhere, to solving
the problems of waging the Revolution. . . As for the 'elite' [i.e. the politically aware], their role, according to the libertarians, is to help the masses, enlighten them, teach
them, give them necessary advice, impel them to take initiative, provide them with an example, and support them in their action -- but not to direct them governmentally." [ The
Unknown Revolution, pp. 177-8]

Sadly, Leninists like the SWP confuse giving a led with taking power themselves. They seek to take over positions of responsibility in a movement and turn them into positions of
power which they can use to tell the others what to do. Instead of being the servants of the organisation, they become its masters. For this reason anarchist organisations try to
influence movements from below, in the mass assemblies which make it up, rather than seek power.



24. Do anarchists blame workers "for being insufficiently revolutionary"?

After creating a straw man about anarchist theory, they draw some thoughts from it:

    "When struggles have not spontaneously broken capitalism, anarchists have tended to end up blaming workers for being insufficiently revolutionary. So 19th century French
    anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon started off talking of his 'love of the people' but ended up saying he 'despised' humanity because they had not overthrown capitalism."

Strange that they picked Proudhon as he was not a revolutionary anarchist. Rather he favoured the reform of capitalism via mutual credit and workers' co-operatives and rejected
the idea of "uprisings" and/or revolution (spontaneous or not). Anyone with even a limited knowledge of Proudhon's work would know this. In addition, Proudhon's last book (The
Political Capacity of the Working Classes), finished on his death bed, was an attempt to influence the workers' movement towards his ideas of mutualism and federalism. Hardly to be
expected from someone who "despised" humanity for not overthrowing capitalism. As examples go, the SWP is clearly clutching at straws.

Moreover, as we argued in the last section, revolutionary anarchists like Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Rocker, etc., all placed a great deal of time and energy
in trying to work within and influence workers' struggles and the labour movement in the here and now. They did not think that workers struggles would necessarily "spontaneously"
break capitalism. While recognising, as we indicated in section 10, that the class struggle changed the ideas of those involved, they recognised the need for anarchist groups,
papers, pamphlets to influence the class struggle in a libertarian way and towards a revolution. They were well aware that "spontaneous" uprisings occurred but were not enough
in themselves -- anarchists would need to organise as anarchists to influence the class struggle, particularly when "uprisings" were not occurring and the daily struggle between
governed and governor, exploited and exploiter was taking less spectacular forms (hence anarchist support and involvement in the labour movement and unions like the C.N.T.).

The SWP then move onto an even greater factual error. They claim that the "biggest anarchist groups today, the 'autonomists' in Europe, treat workers who have not fully broken
with capitalist ideas as an enemy rather than a potential ally." Unfortunately for them, the "autonomists" are not generally anarchists (the name should have given the SWP some
clue, as anarchists are quite proud of their name and generally use it, or libertarian, to describe themselves). Rather the "autonomists" are non-Leninist Marxists whose ideas (and
name) originally came from the Marxist left in Italy during the 1960s. It is also probable that the various European anarchist federations (such as the French and Italian) and
anarcho-syndicalist unions are bigger than the autonomists. However, without any examples of the groups meant it is hard to evaluate the accuracy of the SWP's claims as regards
their size or opinions. Suffice it to say, the leading theorists of "autonomism" such as Toni Negri and Harry Cleaver do not express the opinions the SWP claim "autonomists" have.



25. Why does the history of centralised parties refute the SWP's arguments?

The SWP admit that their analysis leaves much to be desired by mentioning that "[m]any anarchists understand the way that capitalism works and organise to change the world." In
other words, if an anarchist points out the flaws in their argument or a reader knows an anarchist who does not match the SWP's distorted picture, then the SWP can say that they
are part of the "many." Extremely handy, if dishonest, comment to make.

The SWP continue by arguing that our "rejection of centralisation means that at critical moments their intervention in the struggle is fatally flawed." This is ironic. Given that
their example of the benefits of centralisation showed the flaws in that method of organising, their conclusion seems without basis. Moreover, as argued above, centralisation is
the key means by which minorities govern majorities. It is a tool used to impose minority rule and is not designed for other uses. But, then again, the SWP do aim for minority rule
-- the rule of the "revolutionary" party over the masses. As they argue:

    "The working class needs what anarchism rejects - a clear and determined revolutionary party which can lead the working class as a whole, and is not afraid to overthrow
    capitalism and set up a workers' state."

Yes, indeed. The examples of the current anti-capitalist movement, the poll tax revolt and the 1917 February Russian revolution indicate well that a revolutionary party works. If
such a party had led the working class in each of these events, they would not have occurred. The workers would have done nothing, as the Bolsheviks desired. People would have
paid their poll tax waiting for the trade union bureaucrats to act. The anti-globalisation demonstrations would not have happened as the "vanguard" party did not recognise their
importance.

The Russian Revolution quickly resulted in the marginalisation of the workers' councils by the centralised, "clear and determined" Bolsheviks who turned them into rubber stamps
of their government, it suggests that the politics of the SWP leave much to be desired. Given that the one "success" of Leninist politics -- the Russian Revolution of October
1917 -- created state capitalism, with workers' soviets and factory committees undermined in favour of party power ( before, we must stress, the start of the civil war -- what
most Leninists blame the rise of Stalinism on) we may suggest that anarchist ideas have been proven correct again and again. After all, the validity of a theory surely lies in
its ability to explain and predict events. Anarchists, for example, predicted both the degeneration of both Social Democracy and the Russian revolution, the two main examples of
Marxism in action, and presented coherent reasons why this would happen. Marxists have had to generate theories to explain these events after they have occurred, theories which
conveniently ignore the role of Marxist politics in historical events.

This, we suggest, provides the explanation of why they have spent so much time re-writing history and smearing anarchism. Not being able to discuss our ideas honesty -- for that
would expose the authoritarian ideas of Bolshevism and its role in the degeneration of the Russian Revolution -- the SWP invent a straw man they call anarchism and beat him to
death. Unfortunately for them, anarchists are still around and can expose their lies for what they are.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to errors and distortions in John Fisher's "Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism"

On the Trotskyist "New Youth" webpage there is an article entitled "Why we must further Marxism and not Anarchism" by John Fisher. This article contains numerous distortions of
anarchist ideas and positions. Indeed, he makes so many basic errors that only two possible explanations are possible: either he knows nothing about anarchism or he does and is
consciously lying.

We will compare his assertions to what anarchist theory actually argues in order to show that this is the case.

1. Why should "the so-called Anarchistic youth of today" be concerned that Trotskyists consider them allies?

Fisher starts his diatribe against anarchism with some thoughts on the radical youth active in the anti-globalisation demonstrations and movements:

    "The so-called Anarchistic youth of today, year 2001, for the most part simply use the term 'Anarchist' as an indication of not wanting to go along with the 'system' in not
    wanting to assimilate, which is a giant leap forward on their part considering all their lives they've constantly been bombarded with the huge American Corporate propaganda
    machine. For this achievement, they are already more our ally than our enemy."

It makes you wonder how Fisher knows this. Has there been a poll of "anarchistic youth" recently? It would be interesting to discover the empirical basis for this statement. Given
the quality of the rest of the article, we can hazard a guess and say that these particular facts are just assertions and express wishful thinking rather than any sort of reality.

Needless to say, these "anarchistic youth" had better watch out. We all know what happens to the "ally" of the vanguard party once that party takes power. Anarchists remember the
fate of our comrades when Lenin and Trotsky ruled the "proletarian" state.

The Russian anarchists were at the forefront of the struggle between the February and October revolutions in 1917. As socialist historian Samuel Farber notes, the anarchists "had
actually been an unnamed coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution." [Before Stalinism, p. 126] The anarchists were the "allies" of the Bolsheviks before they
took power as both shared the goals of abolishing the provisional government and for a social revolution which would end capitalism.

This changed once the Bolsheviks had taken power. On the night of April 11th, 1918, the Cheka surrounded 26 Anarchist clubs in Moscow, in the insuring fighting Anarchists suffered
40 casualties and 500 were taken prisoner. The Petrograd anarchists protested this attack:

    "The Bolsheviks have lost their senses. They have betrayed the proletariat and attacked the anarchists. They have joined . . . the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. They have
    declared war on revolutionary anarchism. . . . We regarded you [Bolsheviks] as our revolutionary brothers. But you have proved to be traitors. You are Cains -- you have killed
    your brothers . . . There can be no peace with the traitors to the working class. The executioners of the revolution wish to become the executioners of anarchism." [quoted by
    Paul Avrich, The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, p. 113]

Fifteen days later similar raids were carried out in Petrograd. This repression, we must note, took place months before the outbreak of the Russian Civil War (in late May 1918). In
May of that year, leading anarchist periodicals (including Burevestnik, Anarkhia and Golos Truda) were closed down by the government. The repression continued during the war and
afterwards. Many imprisoned anarchists were deported from the "workers' state" in 1921 after they went on hunger strike and their plight was raised by libertarian delegates to the
founding congress of the Red International of Labour Unions held that year.

Unsurprisingly, the Bolsheviks denied they held anarchists. French anarchist Gaston Leval accounted how Lenin had "reiterated the charges made by Dzerzhinsky [founder of the
Bolsheviks secret police, the Cheka] . . . Those in prison were not true anarchists nor idealists -- just bandits abusing our good intentions." Leval, having gathered the facts,
indicated this was not true, making Lenin backtrack. [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 213]

Unsurprisingly, when the libertarian delegates to the congress reported back on conditions in Russia to their unions, they withdrew from the Trade-Union International.

In the Ukraine, the anarchist influenced Makhnovist movement also became an "ally" with the Bolsheviks in the common struggle against the counter-revolutionary White armies. The
Bolsheviks betrayed their allies each time they formed an alliance.

The first alliance was in March 1919 during the struggle against Denikin, In May of that year, two Cheka agents sent to assassinate Makhno (the main leader of the movement) were
caught and executed. The following month Trotsky, the commander of the Red Army, outlawed the Makhnovists and Communist troops attacked their headquarters at Gulyai-Polye.

Denikin's massive attack on Moscow in September 1919 saw the shaky alliance resumed in the face of a greater threat. Once Denikin had been defeated, the Bolsheviks ordered the
Makhnovists to the Polish front. This was obviously designed to draw them away from their home territory, so leaving it defenceless against Bolshevik rule. The Makhnovists refused
and Trotsky, again, outlawed and attacked them.

Hostilities were again broken off when the White General Wrangel launched a major offensive in the summer of 1920. Again the Bolsheviks signed a pact with Makhno. This promised
amnesty for all anarchists in Bolshevik prisons, freedom for anarchist propaganda, free participation to the Soviets and "in the region where the Makhnovist Army is operating, the
population of workers and peasants will create its own institutions of economic and political self-management." [quoted by Peter Arshinov, The History of the Makhnovist Movement,
pp. 177-9] Once Wrangel had been defeated, the Bolsheviks ripped up the agreement and turned their forces, once again, against their "ally" and finally drove them out of the Soviet
Union in 1921.

These events should be remembered when the authoritarian left argue that we aim for the same thing and are allies.

2. What else do people learn about when they discover anarchism is not "utter rebellion"?

Fisher continues:

    "In some cases, 'Anarchist' youth begin to try to learn about what Anarchism truly is instead of seeing it merely as utter rebellion. They learn Anarchism is a form of
    Socialism, they learn they have much in common with Marxists, they learn the state must be smashed, they learn the state is a tool of suppression used by one class against
    another."

They learn much more than this. They learn, for example, about the history of Marxism and how anarchism differs from it.

They learn, for example, about the history of Marxist Social Democracy. Many forget that Social Democracy was the first major Marxist movement. It was formed initially in Germany
in 1875 when the followers of Lassalle and Marx united to form the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). This party followed Marx and Engels recommendations that workers should
form a distinct political party and conquer political power. It rejected the anarchist argument that workers should "abstain from politics" (i.e. elections) and instead, to use an
expression from Marx's preamble of the French Workers' Party, turn the franchise "from a means of deception . . . into an instrument of emancipation." [Marx and Engels Reader, p.
566]

Rather than confirm Marx's politics, Social Democracy confirmed Bakunin's. It quickly degenerated into reformism. As Bakunin predicted, 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]

Form the early 1890s, Social Democracy was racked by arguments between reformists (the "revisionist" wing) and revolutionaries. The former wanted to adapt the party and its
rhetoric to what it was doing. 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]

In 1914, the majority of social democrats in Germany and across the world supported their state in the imperialist slaughter of the First World. This disgraceful end would not have
surprised Bakunin.

Anarchists also learn about the Russian Revolution. They learn how Lenin and Trotsky eliminated democracy in the armed forces, in the workplace and in the soviets.

They learn, for example, that the Bolsheviks had disbanded soviets which had been elected with non-Bolshevik majorities in the spring and summer of 1918. [Samuel Farber, Op. Cit.,
p. 24]

They learn that at the end of March, 1918, Trotsky reported to the Communist Party that "the principle of election is politically purposeless and technically inexpedient, and it
has been, in practice, abolished by decree" in the Red Army. [quoted by M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, pp. 37-8]

They learn that Lenin opposed workers' management of production. Before the October Revolution he saw "workers' control" purely in terms of the "universal, all-embracing workers'
control over the capitalists." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?, p. 52] He did not see it in terms of workers' management of production itself (i.e. the abolition of wage
labour) via federations of factory committees. Anarchists and the workers' factory committees did. "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]

Lenin himself quickly supported "one-man management" invested with "dictatorial powers" after "control over the capitalists" failed. By 1920, Trotsky was advocating the
"militarisation of labour" and implemented his ideas on the railway workers.

They learn that Leninism is just another form of capitalism (state capitalism). As Lenin put it, socialism "is nothing but the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. In
other words, Socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people; by this token it ceases to be capitalist monopoly." [The Threatening Catastrophe and
how to avoid it, p. 37]

They learn that Lenin and Trotsky argued for party dictatorship and centralised, top-down rule (see section 4).

They also learn that this should not come as a surprise. Anarchism argues that the state is a tool to allow minorities to rule and has been designed to ensure minority power. They
learn that it cannot, by its very nature, be a tool for liberation -- no matter who is in charge of it.

3. What do anarchists think will "replace the smashed state machine"?

Fisher now makes a common Marxist assertion. He states:

    "But what they do not learn, and never will from an Anarchist perspective is what is to replace the smashed state machine?"

In reality, if you read anarchist thinkers you will soon discover what anarchists think will "replace" the state: namely the various working class organisations created by the
class struggle and revolution. In the words of Kropotkin, the "elaboration of new social forms can only be the collective work of the masses." [Words of a Rebel, p. 175] He
stressed that "[to] make a revolution it is not . . . enough that there should be . . . [popular] risings . . . It is necessary that after the risings there should be something new
in the institutions [that make up society], which would permit new forms of life to be elaborated and established." [The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 200]

Thus the framework of a free society would be created by the process of the revolution itself. As such, as Kropotkin put it, "[d]uring a revolution new forms of life will always
germinate on the ruins of the old forms . . . It is impossible to legislate for the future. All we can do is vaguely guess its essential tendencies and clear the road for it."
[Evolution and Environment, pp. 101-2] So while the specific forms these organisations would take cannot be predicted, their general nature can be.

So what is the general nature of these new organisations? Anarchists have consistently argued that the state would be replaced by a free federation of workers' associations and
communes, self-managed and organised from the bottom-up. In Malatesta's words, anarchy is the "free organisation from below upwards, from the simple to the complex, through free
agreement and the federation of associations of production and consumption." In particular, he argued anarchists aim to "push the workers to take possession of the factories,
to federate among themselves and work for the community" while the peasants "should take over the land and produced usurped by the landlords, and come to an agreement with the
industrial workers." [Life and Ideas, p. 147 and p. 165]

This vision of revolution followed Bakunin's:

    "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]

Similarly, Proudhon argued federations of workers associations and communes to replace the state. While seeing such activity as essentially reformist in nature, he saw the germs
of anarchy as being the result of "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" as "it is of no use to change the holders of power or introduce some variation into its workings: an agricultural and industrial combination must be
found by means of which power, today the ruler of society, shall become its slave." [ System of Economical Contradictions, p. 399 and p. 398] What, decades later, Proudhon called
an "agro-industrial federation" in his Principle of Federation.

Kropotkin, unsurprisingly enough, had similar ideas. He saw the revolution as the "expropriation of the whole of social wealth" by the workers, who "will organise the workshops so
that they continue production" once "the governments are swept out by the people." The "coming social revolution" would see "the complete abolition of States, and reorganisation
from the simple to the complex through the free federation of the popular forces of producers and consumers," the "federation of workers' corporations and groups of consumers." The
"Commune will know that it must break the State and replace it by the Federation" (which is "freely accepted by itself as well as the other communes"). [Words of a Rebel, p. 99, p.
91, p. 92 and p. 83]

Thus "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the organisation of men [and women] in accordance
with their different functions, gave a concrete conception of society regenerated by a social revolution." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 79]

In his classic history of the French Revolution he pointed to "the popular Commune" as an example of the "something new" required to turn an uprising into a revolution. He argued
that "the Revolution began by creating the Commune . . . and through this institution it gained . . . immense power." He stressed that it was "by means of the 'districts' [of
the Communes] that . . . the masses, accustoming themselves to act without receiving orders from the national representatives, were practising what was to be described later as
Direct Self-Government." Such a system did not imply isolation, for while "the districts strove to maintain their own independence" they also "sought for unity of action, not in
subjection to a Central Committee, but in a federative union." The Commune "was thus made from below upward, by the federation of the district organisations; it spring up in a
revolutionary way, from popular initiative." [The Great French Revolution, vol. 1, p. 200 and p. 203]

During the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, Kropotkin expressed his support for the soviets created by the workers in struggle. He argued that anarchists should "enter the Soviets, but
certainly only as far as the Soviets 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] After the 1917 revolution, he re-iterated this point, arguing that "idea of soviets . . . of councils of workers and peasants . . . controlling the economic
and political life of the country is a great idea. All the more so, since it necessarily follows that these councils should be composed of all who take part in the production of
natural wealth by their own efforts." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 254]

Therefore, Fisher's comments are totally untrue. Anarchists have been pretty clear on this issue from Proudhon onwards (see section I.2.3 for a further discussion of this issue).

4. What did Trotsky and Lenin think must replace the bourgeois state?

Fisher continues his inaccurate attack:

    "What we as Marxists explain is what must replace the smashed bourgeois state machine.

    "Engels explains that the state is a 'special coercive force'. So what must come after the bourgeoisie is overthrown to keep it down? As Lenin explains in the State and
    Revolution: the bourgeois state 'must be replaced by a "special coercive force" for the suppression of the bourgeois by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat)'
    (pg 397 vol. 25 collected works) that is workers' democracy."

There are numerous issues here. Firstly, of course, is the question of how to define the state. Fisher implicitly assumes that anarchists and Marxists share the same definition of
what marks a "state." Secondly, there is the question of whether quoting Lenin's State and Revolution without relating it to Bolshevik practice is very convincing. Thirdly, there
is the question of the defence of the revolution. We will discuss the second question here, the first in the next section and the third in section 6.

There is a well-known difference between Lenin's work The State and Revolution and actual Bolshevik practice. In the former, Lenin promised the widest democracy, although he also
argued that "[w]e cannot imagine democracy, not even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions." ["The State and Revolution", Essential Works of Lenin, p. 306]
Clearly, he saw "democracy" in the normal, bourgeois, sense of electing a government who will make the decisions for the electors. Indeed, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is
described as "the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class." [Op. Cit., p. 337] This "vanguard" is the party:

    "By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat which is capable of assuming power and of leading the whole people to Socialism, of directing
    and organising the new order, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the toiling and exploited in the task of building up their social life without the bourgeoisie
    and against the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., p. 288]

So the vanguard of the oppressed would become the "ruling class", not the oppressed. This means that "workers' democracy" is simply reduced to meaning the majority designates its
rulers but does not rule itself. As such, the "workers' state" is just the same as any other state (see next section).

Thus, before taking power Lenin argued for party power, not workers' power. The workers can elect representatives who govern on their behalf, but they do not actually manage
society themselves. This is the key contradiction for Bolshevism -- it confuses workers' power with party power.

Post-October, the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky changed. If their works are consulted, it is soon discovered what they thought should "replace" the bourgeois state: party
dictatorship.

In the words of Lenin (from 1920):

    "In the transition to socialism the dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable, but it is not exercised by an organisation which takes in all industrial workers . . . What
    happens is that the Party, shall we say, absorbs the vanguard of the proletariat, and this vanguard exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat." [Collected Works, vol. 21,
    p. 20]

He stressed that this was an inevitable aspect of revolution, applicable in all countries:

    "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." [Op. Cit.,
    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]

Lenin and Trotsky are clearly explaining the need for party dictatorship over the working class. This was seen as a general lesson of the Russian Revolution. How many Marxists
"explain" this to anarchists?

Clearly, then, Fisher is not being totally honest when he argues that Trotskyism is based on "workers' democracy." Lenin, for example, argued that "Marxism teaches -- and this
tenet has not only been formally endorsed by the whole of the Communist International in the decisions of the second Congress . . . . but has also been confirmed in practice by our
revolution -- that only the political party of the working class, i.e. the Communist Party, is capable of uniting, training and organising a vanguard of the proletariat and of the
whole working people that alone will be capable of withstanding the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass." [Op. Cit., vol. 32, p. 246]

Lenin is, of course, rejecting what democracy is all about, namely the right and duty of representative bodies to carry out the wishes of the electors (i.e. their "vacillations").
Instead of workers' democracy, he is clearly arguing for the right of the party to ignore it and impose its own wishes on the working class.

Trotsky argued along the same lines (again in 1921):

    "They [the dissent Bolsheviks of the Workers' Opposition] have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert
    its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the worker's democracy!"

He spoke of the "revolutionary historic birthright of the Party" and that it "is obliged to maintain its dictatorship .. . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the
working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy." [quoted by M. Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers'
Control, p. 78]

Needless to say, they did not explain how these lessons and arguments are compatible with Lenin's State and Revolution where he had argued that "[a]ll officials, without
exception," must be "elected and subject to recall at any time." [The Essential Lenin, p. 302] If they are subject to election and recall at any time, then they will reflect the
"passing moods" (the "vacillations") of the workers' democracy. Therefore, to combat this, soviet democracy must be replaced by party dictatorship and neither Lenin nor Trotsky
were shy in both applying and arguing this position.

It is a shame, then, for Fisher's argument that both Lenin and Trotsky also explained why party dictatorship was more important than workers' democracy. It is doubly harmful for
his argument as both argued that this "lesson" was of a general nature and applicable for all revolutions.

It is also a shame for Fisher's argument that the Leninists, once in power, overthrew every soviet that was elected with a non-Bolshevik majority (see section 6 of the appendix
on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?"). They also repressed those who demanded real workers' democracy (as, for example, in Kronstadt in 1921 -- see the appendix on
"What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?" -- or during the numerous strikes under Lenin's rule -- see sections 3 and 5 of the appendix on "What caused the degeneration of the Russian
Revolution?").

Clearly, Fisher's account of Trotskyism, like his account of anarchism, leaves a lot to be desired.

5. Is the "proletarian 'state'" really a new kind of state?

Fisher, after keeping his readers ignorant of Lenin and Trotsky real position on workers' democracy, argues that:

    "The proletariat 'state' is no longer a state in the proper sense of the word, Lenin explains, because it is no longer the minority suppressing the majority, but the vast
    majority suppressing a tiny minority! The Proletariat suppressing the Bourgeoisie."

If it is not a state "in the proper sense of the word" then why use the term state at all? Marxists argue because its function remains the same -- namely the suppression of one
class by another. However, every state that has ever existed has been the organ by which a minority ruling class suppresses the majority. As such, the Marxist definition is
a-historic in the extreme and extracts a metaphysical essence of the state rather than producing a definition based on empirical evidence.

In order to show the fallacy of Fisher's argument, it is necessary to explain what anarchists think the state is.

The assumption underlying Fisher's argument is that anarchists and Marxists share identical definitions of what a state is. This is not true. Marxists, as Fisher notes, think of
a state as simply as an instrument of class rule and so concentrate solely on this function. Anarchists disagree. While we agree that the main function of the state is to defend
class society, we also stress the structure of the state has evolved to ensure 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]

This means that the structure of the state has evolved to ensure its function. Organ and role are interwoven. Keep one and the other will develop. And what is the structure (or
organ) of the state? For anarchists, the state means "the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of
their own affairs . . . are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who . . .are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the
people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force." In summary, it "means the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into
the hands of a few." [Anarchy, p. 13 and p. 40]

This structure has not evolved by chance. It is required by its function as the defender of minority class power. As Kropotkin stressed, the bourgeois needed the state:

    "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 means that to use the structure of the state (i.e. centralised, hierarchical power in the hands of a few) would soon mean the creation of a new minority class of rulers as the
state "could not survive without creating about it a new privileged class." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 35]

Therefore, for a given social organisation to be a state it must be based on delegated power. A state is marked by the centralisation of power into a few hands at the top of the
structure, in other words, it is hierarchical in nature. This is, of course, essential for a minority class to remain control over it. Thus a social system which places power at
the base, into the hands of the masses, is not a state as anarchists understand it. As Bakunin argued, "[w] here all rule, there are no more ruled, and there is no State." [The
Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 223] Therefore, real workers democracy -- i.e. self-management -- existed, then the state would no longer exist.

The question now arises, does the Marxist "workers' state" meet this definition? As indicated in section 4, the answer is a clear yes. In The State and Revolution, Lenin argued
that the workers' state would be based on representative democracy. This meant, according to Bakunin, that political power would 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." [
Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 255]

Rather than "the vast majority suppressing a tiny minority" we have a tiny minority, elected by the majority, suppressing those who disagree with what the government decrees,
including those within the class which the state claims to represent. In the words of Lenin:

    "Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the resistance of these exploiters. On the other
    hand, revolutionary coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable elements among the masses themselves." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p. 170]

And who exercises this "revolutionary coercion"? The majority? No, the vanguard. As Lenin argued, "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, p. 27]

In other words, for Lenin, if the leaders exercised their dictatorship, then so did the masses. Such a position is pure and utter nonsense. If the party leaders govern, then the
masses do not. And so the "workers' state" is a state in the normal sense of the word, with the "minority suppressing the majority." This was made clear by Trotsky 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." [The Moralists and Sycophants, p. 59]

Thus the party (a minority) holds power and uses that power against the masses themselves. Little wonder, given that, once in power, the Bolsheviks quickly forgot their arguments
in favour of representative democracy and argued for party dictatorship (see section 4).

Such a transformation of representative democracy into minority class rule was predicted by anarchists:

    "[I]t is not true that once the social conditions are changed the nature and role of government would change. Organ and function are inseparable terms. Take away from an organ
    its function and either the organ dies or the function is re-established . . . A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making laws and empowered to use the
    collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class 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 into a privileged position, the
    government is already at odds with the people whose strength it disposes of." [Malatesta, Anarchy, pp. 33-4]

Which, of course, is what happened in Russia. As we indicated in section 4, both Lenin and Trotsky defended the imposition of party rule, its need to be beyond public control, by
the necessities generated by the revolution (the "vacillations" within the masses meant that democracy, public control, had to be eliminated in favour of party dictatorship).

Therefore, from an anarchist perspective, the so-called "workers' state" is still a state in "the proper sense of the word" as it is based on centralised, top-down power. It is
based on the tiny minority (the party leaders) governing everyone else and suppressing anyone who disagreed with them -- the vast majority.

If the vast majority did have real power then the state would not exist. As the "proletarian" state is based on delegated power, it is still a state and, as such, an instrument of
minority class rule. In this case, the minority is the party leaders who will use their new powers to consolidate their position over the masses (while claiming that their rule
equals that of the masses).

6. Do anarchists "hope the capitalists do not make any attempts of counterrevolution"?

Fisher continues his inventions:

    "Instead of organising an instrument for the coercion of the bourgeois by the proletariat, the Anarchists wish to simply abolish the state overnight and hope that the
    capitalists do not make any attempts of counterrevolution, an absurd and unrealistic idea."

Yes, it would be, if anarchists actually believed that. Sadly for Fisher, we do not and have stated so on many, many, many occasions. Indeed, to make an assertion like this is to
show either a total ignorance of anarchist theory or a desire to deceive.

So do anarchists "hope that the capitalists do not make any attempts of counterrevolution"? Of course not. We have long argued that a revolution would need to defend itself. In the
words of Malatesta:

    "But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery
    once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above
    all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the
    experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers
    (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear. . . [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 a respect for the freedom of those who might feel the need to be rulers and
    property owners. A truly curious way of interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, pp. 40-1]

Elsewhere he argued that a revolution would "reorganise things in such a way that it will be impossible for bourgeois society to be reconstituted. And all this, and whatever else
would be required to satisfy public needs and the development of the revolution would be the task of . . . al kinds of committees, local, inter-communal, regional and national
congresses which would attend to the co-ordination of social activity . . . The creation of voluntary militia . . . to deal with any armed attacks by the forces of reaction to
re-establish themselves, or to resist outside intervention by countries as yet not in a state of revolution." [Life and Ideas, pp. 165-6]

He was not alone in this position. Every revolutionary anarchist argued along these lines. Bakunin, for example, clearly saw the need to defend a revolution:

    "Commune will be organised by the standing federation of the Barricades. . . [T]he federation of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would] organise a
    revolutionary force capableof defeating reaction . . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the
    insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1]

And:

    "[L]et us suppose . . . it is Paris that starts [the revolution] . . . Paris will naturally make haste to organise itself as best it can, in revolutionary style, after the
    workers have joined into associations and made a clean sweep of all the instruments of labour, every kind of capital and building; armed and organised by streets and quartiers,
    they will form the revolutionary federation of all the quartiers, the federative commune. . . All the French and foreign revolutionary communes will then send representatives
    to organise the necessary common services . . . and to organise common defence against the enemies of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 178-9]

He stressed the need to organise and co-ordinate the defence of the revolution by armed workers:

    "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]

Similarly, the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist CNT union recognised the need for defending a revolution in its 1936 resolution on Libertarian Communism:

    "We acknowledge the necessity to defend the advances made through the revolution . . . So . . . the necessary steps will be taken to defend the new regime, whether against
    the perils of a foreign capitalist invasion . . . or against counter-revolution at home. It must be remembered that a standing army constitutes the greatest danger for the
    revolution, since its influence could lead to dictatorship, which would necessarily kill off the revolution. . .

    "The people armed will be the best assurance against any attempt to restore the system destroyed from either within or without. . .

    "Let each Commune have its weapons and means of defence . . . the people will mobilise rapidly to stand up to the enemy, returning to their workplaces as soon as they may have
    accomplished their mission of defence. . . .

    "1. The disarming of capitalism implies the surrender of weaponry to the communes which be responsible for ensuring defensive means are effectively organised nationwide.

    "2. In the international context, we shall have to mount an intensive propaganda drive among the proletariat of every country so that it may take an energetic protest, calling
    for sympathetic action against any attempted invasion by its respective government. At the same time, our Iberian Confederation of Autonomous Libertarian Communes will render
    material and moral assistance to all the world's exploited so that these may free themselves forever from the monstrous control of capitalism and the State." [quoted by Jose
    Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 110]

If it was simply a question of consolidating a revolution and its self-defence then there would be no argument. Rather the question is one of power -- will power be centralised,
held by a handful of leaders and exercised from the top downwards or will it be decentralised and society run from the bottom-up by working people themselves?

Fisher distorts the real issue and instead invents a straw man which has no bearing at all on the real anarchist position (for further discussion, see sections I.5.14 and J.7.6).

7. Are Anarchists simply "potential Marxists"?

After creating the straw man argument that anarchists have not thought about counter-revolution, Fisher asserts:

    "The majority of our 'Anarchist' friends never thought about this little loop hole, and as for the rest of them they shrug it off, or say something to the effect of the armed
    proletariat themselves will stop capitalist reaction, which, an armed proletariat in reality, is a proletarian 'state'! In conclusion our 'Anarchists' are simply potential
    Marxists who need access to genuinely revolutionary ideas."

Of course, anarchists have thought about this and have came up with, as Fisher puts it, "the armed proletariat." Indeed, anarchists have held this position since the days of
Bakunin, as we proved in the last section.

Moreover, from an anarchist perspective, an "armed proletariat" is not a "state" as there is not minority of rulers telling the proletariat what to do (see section 5). The
"proletariat" state of Lenin was a real state simply because it was the Bolshevik party leaders who were telling the armed forces of the state what to do and who to repress
(including striking workers, anarchists and rebelling peasants). These forces, we must note, were organised from the top-down, with the government appointing officers. It was an
"armed proletariat" only in the same sense that the bourgeois army is an "armed proletariat" (i.e. working class people made by the rank and file, fought the battles and followed
the orders decided upon by a handful of people at the top).

So, if defence of a revolution by the armed proletariat makes you a Marxist then Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, Goldman, Berkman, Makhno and Durruti were all "Marxists"! As is
every revolutionary anarchist. Needless to say, this is impossible and, as such, Fisher's "little loop hole" in anarchism does not exist.

Clearly, Fisher has no understanding of anarchist thought and prefers invention rather than research.

Our Trotskyist then states that:

    "It is our job, as Marxists to explain these ideas to them!"

In other words, the Marxist job is to explain anarchist ideas to anarchists and call them Marxism. How impressive!

8. Is Marxism scientific?

Fisher finishes by arguing that:

    "As Lenin states, 'the ideas of Marx are all powerful, because they are true'! We have the science of dialectics on our side, not idealism, mysticism or theology. Our
    philosophy is solid as a rock."

Firstly, dialectics is not a science. Secondly, quoting Lenin on the wonders of Marxism is like quoting the Pope on the joys of Catholicism. Thirdly, the only rocks around are in
the heads of Trotskyists if they really think this nonsense about anarchism.

Simply put, a science involves investigating the facts of what is being investigated and generating theories based on those facts. Clearly, our Trotskyist has not bothered to
discover the facts about anarchism. He has made numerous assertions about anarchism which are contradicted by the works of anarchism. He has, as such, ignored the fundamental
nature of science and has, instead, embraced the approach of the fiction writer.

As such, if Fisher's article is an example of the "science" of Marxism then we can safely state that Marxism is not a science. Rather it is based on invention and slander.

9. What does the Russian Revolution tell us about Trotskyism?

Our Trotskyist decides to quote another Trotskyist, Ted Grant, on the dangers of anarchism:

    "However, the setting up of soviets and strike committees -- important as it is -- does not solve the fundamental problem facing the Russian workers. In and of themselves,
    soviets solve nothing. What is decisive is the party that leads them. In February 1917, the workers and soldiers set up soviets -- a step of enormous importance to the
    revolution. But in the hands of the Mensheviks and SRs they were reduced to impotence. . . In Germany in November 1918, the soviets were in the hands of the Social Democratic
    leaders who betrayed the revolution and handed power back to the bourgeoisie. Under these conditions the soviets soon dissolved, and were merely transient phenomena. The same
    would have happened in Russia, if it had not been for the Bolshevik Party and the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky."

Grant is, of course, just paraphrasing Trotsky in his analysis. Moreover, like Trotsky's, his comments indicate the fundamentally dictatorial nature of Trotskyism.

Simply put, if the "leadership" of the party is the key to soviet power, then if the workers' reject that leadership via soviet elections then the Trotskyist is on the horns of a
dilemma. Without party "leadership" then the soviets will be "reduced to impotence" and be "merely transient phenomena." To maintain this party "leadership" (and ensure the soviet
power) then the democratic nature of the soviets must be undermined. Therefore the Trotskyist is in the ironic situation of thinking that soviet democracy will undermine soviet
power.

This dilemma was solved, in practice, by Trotsky during the Russian Revolution -- he simply placed party "leadership" above soviet democracy. In other words, he maintained soviet
power by turning the soviets into "nothing." He argued this position numerous times in his life, when he was in power and after he had been expelled from Russia by Stalin.

In 1920, we find Trotsky's thoughts on this subject in his infamous work Terrorism and Communism. In this work he defended the fact of Communist Party dictatorship:

    "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, in all their magnitude,
    on to the order of the day, the Communists have become the recognised representatives of the working class as a whole."

Needless to say, this is incredulous. How can the replacement of soviet power by party power mean the "supremacy of labour"? It means the supremacy of the Bolshevik party, not
"labour." The transformation of the soviets from genuine democratic organs of working class self-government ("shapeless parliaments of labour") into an instrument of Bolshevik
party rule ("the apparatus of the supremacy of labour") cannot be seen as a victory of democracy, quite the reverse. The dictatorship of the Bolshevik party marginalised the
soviets just as much as the events of the German Revolution. The only difference is that under the Bolsheviks they maintained a symbolic existence.

Therefore, rather than the "leadership" of the Bolshevik party ensuring soviet rule it meant, in practice, party dictatorship. The soviets played no role in the decision making
process as power rested firmly in the hands of the party.

This position was repeated in 1937, in his essay "Bolshevism and Stalinism." There he argued that a "revolutionary party, even having seized power . . . is still by no means the
sovereign ruler of society." He stressed that "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard" and that "[t]hose who propose the abstraction of the Soviets from the party
dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the
proletariat." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]

Therefore, we have the same position. Without party dictatorship, the soviets would fall back into the "mud of reformism." He argued that the "fact that this party subordinates
the Soviets politically to its leaders has in itself abolished the Soviet system no more than the domination of the conservative majority has abolished the British parliamentary
system." [Op. Cit.] This analogy is flawed for two reasons.

Firstly, the parliamentary system is based on a division between executive and legislative functions. Lenin argued that the soviet system would, like the Paris Commune, abolish
this division and so ensure "the conversion of the representative institutions from mere 'talking shops' into working bodies." [ The Essential Lenin, p. 304] If the decisions being
made by the Soviets have been decided upon by the leaders of the Bolshevik party then the soviets represent those leaders, not the people who elected them. As in the bourgeois
system, the representatives of the people govern them rather than express the wishes of the majority. As such, the idea that the Soviets are organs of working class self-government
has been abolished. Instead, they are mere "talking shops" with power resting in the hands of the party leadership.

Secondly, when elections take place parliamentary system it is generally recognised that the majority of representatives can become the government. The system is therefore
based on the assumption that the government is accountable to parliament, not parliament to the government. This means that the "domination" of the majority within Parliament
is an expression of parliamentary democracy. The majority party does not maintain that only its existence in power ensures that parliamentary democracy can continue, therefore
necessitating the suppression of elections. However, that is the position of Trotsky (and of Lenin) and, let us not forget, the actual actions of the Bolsheviks.

That this is the logical conclusion of Trotsky's position can be seen when he discusses the Kronstadt rebellion of March 1921 (see the appendix on "What was the Kronstadt
Rebellion?"). In 1938, he argued that the "Kronstadt slogan" was "soviets without Communists." [Lenin and Trotsky, Kronstadt, p. 90] This, of course, is factually incorrect. The
Kronstadt slogan was "all power to the soviets but not to the parties" (or "free soviets"). From this incorrect assertion, Trotsky argued as follows:

    "to free the soviets from the leadership [!] of the Bolsheviks would have meant within a short time to demolish the soviets themselves. The experience of the Russian soviets
    during the period of Menshevik and SR domination and, even more clearly, the experience of the German and Austrian soviets under the domination of the Social Democrats, proved
    this. Social Revolutionary-anarchist soviets could only serve as a bridge from the proletarian dictatorship. They could play no other role, regardless of the 'ideas' of their
    participants. The Kronstadt uprising thus had a counterrevolutionary character." [Op. Cit., p. 90]

Interesting logic. Let us assume that the result of free elections would have been the end of Bolshevik "leadership" (i.e. dictatorship), as seems likely. What Trotsky is arguing
is that to allow workers to vote for their representatives would "only serve as a bridge from the proletarian dictatorship"!

This argument was made (in 1938) as a general point and is not phrased in terms of the problems facing the Russian Revolution in 1921. In other words Trotsky is clearly arguing for
the dictatorship of the party and contrasting it to soviet democracy. As he put it elsewhere, the "revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders
the masses to the counter-revolution." [Writings 1936-7, pp. 513-4] So much for "All Power to the Soviets" or "workers' power"!

Clearly, Grant's and Trotsky's arguments contain a deeply undemocratic core. The logic of their position -- namely that party rule is essential to ensure soviet rule -- in practice
means that soviet rule is replaced by party dictatorship. To include the masses into the decision making process by soviet democracy means loosening the tight political control of
the party on the soviets and allowing the possibility that opposition forces may win in the soviets. However, if that happens then it means the end of soviet power as that is only
possible by means of party "leadership." This, in turn, necessitates party dictatorship to maintain "soviet power", as Trotsky and Lenin admitted and implemented.

Simply put, Grant's argument shows the dangers of Trotskyism, not of anarchism.

10. Do anarchists reject "leadership"?

Grant continues by asserting the need for leaders:

    "Some say that such a party is not necessary, that the workers do not need a party, that it leads to bureaucracy, and so on. That is a fatal error. The whole history of the
    international workers' movement shows the absolute need for a revolutionary party. Anarchism is an expression of impotence, which can offer no way out. Of course, the reason
    why some honest workers and young people turn towards anarchism is because of their revulsion against Stalinism and the bureaucratic and class collaborationist policies of the
    existing leaderships, both on the political and trade union field. This is understandable, but profoundly mistaken. The answer to a bad leadership is not no leadership, but to
    create a leadership that is worthy of the workers' cause. To refuse to do this, to abstain from the political struggle . . . amounts to handing over the workers to the existing
    leaders without a struggle. In order to combat the policy of class collaboration, it is necessary to pose an alternative in the form of a revolutionary policy, and therefore
    also a revolutionary tendency."

There are so many fallacies in this argument it is hard to know where to start.

Firstly, we should note that anarchists do not deny the need for "leaders" nor for the need for revolutionaries to organise together to influence the class struggle. To claim so
indicates a failure to present the anarchist case honestly.

In the words of Kropotkin:

    "The idea of anarchist communism, today represented by . . . 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." [Words of a Rebel, p. 75]

Bakunin considered it essential that revolutionaries organise and influence the masses. As he put it, "the chief aim and purpose of this organisation" is to "help the people
towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 191]

Therefore, to claim that anarchists deny the need for political organisation and "leaders" is a misrepresentation. As we argue in more depth in section J.3, this is not the case.
However, we must stress that anarchists do not seek positions of power ("leadership") in organisations. Rather, they aim to influence by the power of our ideas, "through the
natural, personal influence of its members, who have not the slightest power." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 193] This is because "leadership" positions in hierarchical organisations are
a source of corruption, which is the second major fallacy in Grant's argument.

While acknowledging that the existing leadership of working class organisations and unions are "bureaucratic and class collaborationist," he does not indicate why this is so. He
argued that we need a "new" leadership, with the correct ideas, to replace the current ones. However, the "policy of class collaboration" within these leaderships did not develop
by chance. Rather they are a product of both the tactics (such as electioneering, in the case of political parties) and structures used in these organisations.

Looking at structures, we can clearly see that hierarchy is key. By having leadership positions separate from the mass of workers (i.e. having hierarchical structures), an
inevitable division develops between the leaders and the rank and file. The "leaders" are insulated from the life, interests and needs of the membership. Their views adjust to
their position, not vice versa, and so "leadership" becomes institutionalised and quickly becomes bureaucratic. As Bakunin argued, the only way to avoid bureaucracy is to empower
the rank and file.

Taking the Geneva section of the IWMA, Bakunin noted that the construction workers' section "simply left all decision-making to their committees . . . In this manner power
gravitated to the committees, and by a species of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted their own will and their own ideas for that of the
membership." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 246] To combat this bureaucracy, "the construction workers . . . sections could only defend their rights and their autonomy in only one way:
the workers called general membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees more than these popular assemblies. . . In these great meetings of the sections, the
items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most progressive opinion prevailed. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 247]

This did not mean the end of organisations and committees, but rather a change in power. Any committees would be made up of "delegates who conscientiously fulfilled all their
obligations to their respective sections as stipulated in the statues," "reporting regularly to the membership the proposals made and how they voted" and "asking for further
instructions (plus instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates)." [Ibid.] Power would be in the hands of the rank and file, not the committees.

It is in this context that anarchists try and give a lead. Anarchist organisation "rules out any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power" and it "will promote
the Revolution only through the natural but never official influence of all members of the Alliance." [Op. Cit., p. 154 and p. 387] This influence would be exerted in the basic
assemblies of the organisation, which would retain the power to decide their own fates: "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." [Op. Cit., p. 415]

Only in this way can the bad effects of having institutionalised "leadership" positions be avoided. Instead of ignoring "bad" leadership, anarchists encourage workers to rely
on their own initiative and power. They do not "refuse" to combat bureaucratic leaderships, rather they combat them from below by ensuring that workers manage their own affairs
directly. As such, anarchists are well aware of the need "to pose an alternative in the form of a revolutionary policy, and therefore also a revolutionary tendency."

As Malatesta argued, we "do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves." Thus anarchists "advocate and practise direct action, decentralisation,
autonomy and individual initiative; they should make special efforts to help members [of popular organisations] learn to participate directly in the life of the organisation and to
dispense with leaders and full-time functionaries." However, "[w]e must not wait to achieve anarchy, in the meantime limiting ourselves to simple propaganda . . . We must seek to
get all people . . . to make demands, and impose itself and take for itself all the improvements and freedoms that it desires as and when it reaches the state of wanting them, and
the power to demand them: and in always propagating all aspects of our programme, and always struggling for its complete realisation, we must push people to want always more and to
increase its pressures, until it has reached complete emancipation." [Life and Ideas, p. 90, p. 125 and p. 189]

He, like all anarchists, stressed there were different kinds of "leadership":

    "It is possible to direct ["lead"] through advice and example, leaving the people -- provided with the opportunities and means of supplying their own needs themselves -- to
    adopt our methods and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested and carried out by others. But it is also possible to direct by taking over command,
    that is by becoming a government and imposing one's own ideas and interests through police methods." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 108]

Unsurprisingly, anarchists favour the first way of "leading" people and utterly reject the second.

Clearly, then, anarchists do not reject being "leaders" in the sense of arguing our ideas and combating the influence and power of bureaucratic leaderships. However, this "lead" is
based on the influence of our ideas and, as such, is a non-hierarchical relationship between anarchist activists and other workers. Thus Grant's argument is a straw man.

Finally, his comment that "whole history of the international workers' movement shows the absolute need for a revolutionary party" is simply false. Every example of a
"revolutionary party" has been a failure. They have never created a socialist society which, let us not forget, was their aim. The first "revolutionary" party was Social Democracy.
That quickly became reformist and, in Germany, crushed the revolution that broke out there after the end of the First World War.

The Bolshevik party was no better. It soon transformed itself for being the masses servant to being its master (see section 4). It justified its repression against the working
class in terms of its "vanguard" position. When it degenerated into Stalinism, Communist Parties across the world followed it -- no matter how insane its policies became.

This is unsurprising. As the anarchists of Trotwatch explain, such a "revolutionary" party leaves much to be desired:

    "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]

Therefore, while anarchists stress the need to organise as anarchists (i.e. into political associations) they reject the need for a "revolutionary party" in the Marxist or Leninist
mold. Rather than seeking power on behalf of the masses, anarchist groups work within the mass organisations of the working class and urge them to take and exercise power directly,
without governments and without hierarchy. We seek to win people over to our ideas and, as such, we work with others as equals using debate and discussion to influence the class
struggle (see section J.3.6 for fuller details and a discussion of how this differs from the Trotskyist position).

Therefore, Grant's whole argument is flawed. Anarchists do not reject "leadership," they reject hierarchical leadership. We clearly see the need to organise politically to
influence the class struggle but do so as equals, by the strength of our ideas. We do not seek to create or seize positions of "leadership" (i.e. power) but rather seek to ensure
that the masses manage their own affairs and are influenced by political tendencies only in-so-far as they can convinced of the validity of the politics and ideas of those
tendencies.

11. Does the Spanish Revolution show anarchism is flawed?

As usual, Grant brings up the question of the Spanish Revolution:

    "The anarchist workers of the CNT played a heroic role in the struggle against fascism. In July 1936, they rose up and stormed the barracks armed with just sticks and knives
    and a few old hunting rifles, and beat the fascists. They set up soviets and established a workers' militia and workers' control in the factories. The CNT and the POUM (a
    centrist party led by ex-Trotskyists) were the only power in Barcelona. Soon the whole of Catalonia was in the hands of the workers. The bourgeois President of Catalonia, LLuis
    Companys, actually invited the CNT to take power! But the anarchist leaders refused to take power, and the opportunity was lost."

Needless to say, this summary leaves much to be desired.

Firstly, there are the factual errors. The offer to the CNT from Companys occurred on July 20th, immediately after the uprising had been defeated in Barcelona. The situation in the
rest of Catalonia, never mind Spain, was unknown. This fact is essential to understanding the decisions made by the CNT. Faced with a military coup across the whole of Spain intent
on introducing fascism, the outcome of which was unknown, the CNT in Barcelona was in a difficult situation. If it tried to implement libertarian communism then it would have had
to fight both the fascist army and the Republican state. Faced with this possibility, the CNT leaders decided to ignore their politics and collaborate with other anti-fascists
within the bourgeois state. Needless to say, to fail to indicate the rationale for the CNT's decision and the circumstances it was made in means to misinform the reader. This does
not mean the CNT's decision was correct, it is just to indicate the extremely difficult circumstances in which it was made.

Secondly, Grant lets the cat out of the bag by admitted that he sees the Spanish Revolution in terms of the anarchist "leaders" taking power. In this he followed Trotsky, who had
argued that:

    "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"]

Clearly, rather than the masses taking power, Trotskyism sees the party (the leaders) having the real power in society. Trotsky stressed this fact elsewhere when he argued that
"[b]ecause the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." [ Writings 1936-7, p. 514]

The "anarchist leaders" quite rightly rejected this position, but they also rejected the anarchist one as well. Let us not forget that the anarchist position is the destruction of
the state by means of federations of workers associations (see section 3). The CNT refused to do this. Which, of course, means that Grant is attacking anarchist theory in spite of
the fact that the CNT ignored that theory!

As we have discussed this issue in depth elsewhere (namely sections I.8.10, I.8.11 and section 20 of the appendix "Marxists and Spanish Anarchism") we will leave our discussion of
the Spanish Revolution to this short summary.

12. Does anarchism believe in spontaneous revolution?

Grant now asserts another erroneous position to anarchism, namely the believe that anarchists believe in spontaneous revolution. He presents the case of the Albanian revolution:

    "However, the most crushing answer to anarchism is the fate of the Albanian revolution. The Albanian masses, as the result of the nightmare brought about by the collapse of
    so-called market reform . . . rose up in a spontaneous insurrection. With no organisation, no leadership, and no conscious plan, they stormed the barracks with their bare
    hands. The army fraternised . . . opened the gates of the barracks and distributed arms. Revolutionary committees were established, especially in the South, and the armed
    militias spread the revolt from one town to the next. The forces of reaction sent by Berisha were routed by the armed people. There was nothing to stop them from entering
    Tirana . . . But here the importance of leadership becomes clear. Lacking a revolutionary leadership with the perspective of taking power and transforming society, the
    insurrectionists failed to take Tirana."

Needless to say, the argument for "a revolutionary leadership" with "the perspective of taking power" is hard to combine with his later argument that "the Russian workers, basing
themselves on their own strength and organisation, [must] take power into their own hands." As Grant has argued throughout this excerpt, the idea that the workers should take power
themselves is utopian as a Bolshevik style leadership is required to seize power. As Trotsky and Lenin made clear, the working class as a whole cannot exercise the "proletariat
dictatorship" -- only party dictatorship can ensure the transition from capitalism to communism. In summary, Grant is simply using the old Bolshevik technique of confusing the
party with the proletariat.

However, this is besides the point. Grant asserts that anarchists think a revolution can occur spontaneously, without the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists and argue
their politics. Needless to say, anarchists do not hold such a position and never have. If we did then anarchists would not write books, pamphlets and leaflets, they would not
produce papers and take part in struggles and they would not organise anarchist groups and federations. As we do all that, clearly we do not think that an anarchist society will
come about without us trying to create it. As such, Grant's comments misrepresent the anarchist position.

This can be seen from Bakunin, who argued that the 1848 revolutions failed "for a quite a simple reason: it was rich in instinct and in negative theoretical ideas . . . but it was
still totally devoid of the positive and practical ideas which would have been necessary to build a new system . . . on the ruins of the bourgeois world. The workers who fought for
the emancipation of the people in June were united by instinct, not ideas . . . This was the principal cause of their defeat." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 104]

Given that "instinct as a weapon is not sufficient to safeguard the proletariat against the reactionary machinations of the privileged classes," 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] Therefore, 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]

Hence the need for anarchists to organise as anarchists:

    "The Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist group] is the necessary complement to the International [the revolutionary workers' movement]. But the International and the Alliance, while
    having the same ultimate aims, perform different functions. The International endeavours to unify the working masses . . . regardless of nationality and national boundaries
    or religious and political beliefs, into one compact body; the Alliance . . . tries to give these masses a really revolutionary direction. The programs of one and the other,
    without being opposed, differ in the degree of their revolutionary development. The International contains in germ, but only in germ, the whole program of the Alliance. The
    program of the Alliance represents the fullest unfolding of the International." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 157]

Thus only by arguing for anarchist ideas can anarchy come about. It will not come about by accident. Hence Malatesta's argument that anarchists "must deepen, develop and propagate
our ideas and co-ordinate our forces in a common action. We must act within the labour movement . . . [W]e must act in such a way that it contributes to preparing for a complete
social transformation. We must work with the unorganised .. . . masses to awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire and hope for a free and happy life. We must initiate and
support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers. . . And then, in the
revolution, we must take an energetic part (if possible before and more effectively than the others) in the essential material struggle and drive it to the utmost limit in
destroying all the repressive forces of the State. We must encourage the workers to take possession of the means of production . . . and of stocks of manufactured goods; to
organise immediately, on their own, an equitable distribution of . . . products . . . and for the continuation and intensification of production and all services useful to the
public. We must . . . promote action by the workers' associations, the co-operatives, the voluntary groups -- to prevent the emergence of new authoritarian powers, new governments,
opposing them with violence if necessary, but above all rendering them useless." [The Anarchist Revolution, pp. 109-110]

A key process of this is to argue that workers' organisations become the framework of the new world and smash the state. As Murray Bookchin argues, anarchists "seek to persuade
the factory committees, assemblies [and other organisations created by people in struggle] . . . to make themselves into genuine organs of popular self-management, not to dominate
them, manipulate them, or hitch them to an all-knowing political party." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 217] For more discussion of this issue, see section J.7.5 (What is the role of
anarchists in a social revolution?).

Clearly, rather than being "the most crushing answer to anarchism," the fate of the Albanian revolution rather shows how inaccurate Grant's argument is. Anarchists do not hold the
position he states we do, as we have proven. Anarchists were not surprised by the fate of the Albanian revolution as the Albanian workers were not fighting for an anarchist society
but rather were protesting against the existing system. The role of anarchists in such a struggle would have been to convince those involved to smash the existing state and create
a new society based on federations of workers' associations. That this was not done suggests that anarchist ideas were not the dominant ones in the revolt and, therefore, it is
hardly surprising that the revolution failed.