Defending the Revolution

[The Feral Underclass]

Does anyone know of any Anarchist literature which discusses [specifically] the safegaurding of the revolution? :ph34r:

[Blackberry]

How could an anarchist revolution defend itself? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secJ7.html#secj76)

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you comrade :ph34r:

[Comrade lex]

go to www.marxists.org, they have archives of Emma Goldman and John Most, in the early 1900's they were anarchists, in fact Emma was deported back to Russia for speaking out agains WWI. I highly recomend looking for her stuff, very smart lady.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2003, 11:07 AM
How could an anarchist revolution defend itself? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secJ7.html#secj76)
A well written and clear article. But I have to comment that regretably it does actually contain quite a few throw away lines that reveal exactly where the real weakness (a very important one) lies in the Anarchist position on both revolutions itself and defending one.

Much play is made of how much sucess the various militias had. Very true. I dont think anyone is suggesting that milita efforts are worthless. But the real point is that they were in cases working alone. They were supporting other more organised forces.

There is even a comment in the article to the effect that the milias were not given sufficient weaponry by [the more oganised marxists]. True probably. But the real point is that if it were truly the case that a milita movement could of itself suceeed they would not be relying on hand outs from others to support them. What would have happened had there been nobody doing this at all.

The botom line is that while small units of 'militia' can serve a useful support function in defense or revolution they are not sufficient to win. OIts probably better to have them on your side than on the enemies side, and possibly (more debatable) better to have some than to have the equivalent force all organised centrally; but certainly there is no evidence in military history that such forces by themselves could hope to repulse a determined and organised enemy. They could make occupation costly; but whether this is enough even to persuade an enemy to eventually retreat would depend on what the enemy stood to gain, how determined the milita were, and what support they have from the general populace (and again probably also from outside forces sympathetric to them BUT ORGANISED).

Sorry mates. It is a glorious idea, but in reality no anarchic community is by itself going to last long against a determined and organised enemy. If the Anarchist have allies who are bnot themselves so haphazard in their approach to organisation they may do something, but by themselves you could forget it.

[Severian]

The Spanish Civil War is not really an example to be followed, in that the workers lost. So what did they do wrong? Why did they lose?

The anarchist militias in Spain, and the other workers' militias, were often more effective than the troops of the bourgeois government, despite their lack of weapons. But that's not really saying much; you can't count on a bourgeois government to fight against fascism.

I don't think you can really criticize the anarchists for a lack of centralism in the Spanish Civil War; there seems to have been, in practice, a pretty centralized command on the Huesca front. Just the fact that there was a continuous front indicates that. Wouldn't happen if every militia just set up where it seems best to them.

The real question is: why did the anarchist leaders support, and sometimes participate in, the bourgeois government? Why didn't they support the working class taking power away from the bourgeois government, which was sabotaging the war against Franco because it was afraid to let the workers' militias have too many weapons?

Truth is, virtually the whole capitalist class supported Franco. The bourgeois liberals leading the Spanish Republic represented no real force. The only real force fighting Franco was the workers.

So why not have a workers' government, instead of the bourgeois government that constantly hamstrung workers' effort to fight? In the case of the anarchist leaders, they opposed a workers' government because they opposed all government.

This didn't stop them from supporting the bourgeois government, however...

This is not an exception or a fluke; in every revolutionary crisis, where the question of power is at stake, anarchists have been unable to stick to their doctrines, and have supported, and at times participated in, one or another government.

The stuff about Makhno is that article is BS: far from refusing to govern, or even respecting freedom of speech, he had Bolshevik agitators shot.

[Som]

Much play is made of how much sucess the various militias had. Very true. I dont think anyone is suggesting that milita efforts are worthless. But the real point is that they were in cases working alone. They were supporting other more organised forces.

There is even a comment in the article to the effect that the milias were not given sufficient weaponry by [the more oganised marxists]. True probably. But the real point is that if it were truly the case that a milita movement could of itself suceeed they would not be relying on hand outs from others to support them. What would have happened had there been nobody doing this at all.

Talking about the spain I see, but I think this is a terribly poor example. That would assume that had there not been an anarchist contingent that somehow the republican forces would've won. The fact is that ALL the forces of spain lost. Liberals, Stalinists, trots, and anarchists.

Because they were not working alone is trivial, a huge portion of the arms during the war came from soviet russia, and of course the communist party got priority over them.
It had nothing to do with the system of the anarchists at all, it was simply the availability of resources. Likewise the areas of spain that were still under the liberal capitalist system and those being assimilated to the stalinist command economy could not produce enough weapons for themselves, hence the reliance on soviet arms.
During the war, the anarchist region of spain region actually increased production, and workers of several industries were working extra hours to produce weapons for the militias.

On the other hand, the fascists were supplied heavily by italy and germany, so they had a huge supply of arms and supplies.

So the point im making here is that it was uncontrollable circumstances, and whatever system it was, it was lacking weapons. There are few accusations that you can make of the anarchists that can't be made of the stalinists, trots, and republicans fighting in the war.


As far as I've read the makhnovists in the ukraine on the other hand, didn't have a problem with arms in particular, they were simply out numbered by the red army.


better to have some than to have the equivalent force all organised centrally

I think you've done this before, and what it is is ignoring a huge distinction of central organization, and central power. The anarchists in spain were actually relatively centrally organized, but an anarchist group later in the war, the friend of durruti, called for a 'revolutionary junta' as a central organizing force.

As anarchist organization is bottom up, orders that are bad, like lets say shooting the workers of the telephone company for mantaining their worker council system (this did happen in the spanish civil war), will be ignored, but at large most will go along as necesary, which is generally what happened with the militias in ukraine and spain.


The real question is: why did the anarchist leaders support, and sometimes participate in, the bourgeois government? Why didn't they support the working class taking power away from the bourgeois government, which was sabotaging the war against Franco because it was afraid to let the workers' militias have too many weapons?

Truth is, virtually the whole capitalist class supported Franco. The bourgeois liberals leading the Spanish Republic represented no real force. The only real force fighting Franco was the workers.

So why not have a workers' government, instead of the bourgeois government that constantly hamstrung workers' effort to fight? In the case of the anarchist leaders, they opposed a workers' government because they opposed all government.

This didn't stop them from supporting the bourgeois government, however...

Few anarchists agree with what they did there, but its important to understand why the participated with the government. It was the idea of the united front. At the time it seemed like fighting fascism came first and above all else. This was the basis that they worked with the government, that buddying up with the liberals and communists, who were desperately hoping the british and french would help them, would help them win the war.
Of course history proved them wrong, and the CNTs reformism isn't looked on too kindly, even by a lot of the anarchists of the time (hence the Friends of Durruti group), but with the idea of fighting fascism, its an understandable mistake.

Of course its fair to mention that nearly all of the left sold out in the same way, (taking land from the peasants and giving it to the former landlords, as well as aiding the burgiouse in general aren't exactly the acts of good communists) so it was more a consequence of what happened in spain, than any anarchist fault.


This is not an exception or a fluke; in every revolutionary crisis, where the question of power is at stake, anarchists have been unable to stick to their doctrines, and have supported, and at times participated in, one or another government.

What other examples are there of anarchists doing that? The only government I can think of the anarchists cozying up to at all was in spain.


The stuff about Makhno is that article is BS: far from refusing to govern, or even respecting freedom of speech, he had Bolshevik agitators shot.

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that, though he did keep the few bolsheviks in the region from seizing power. If the source comes from pravda, or even worse, trotsky, its most likely a blatant lie. There was a heavy propaganda campaign against the makhnovists, with some lies worse and more obvious than others, few are substansiated or backed by anything other than the soviet press. Among other things they said about makhno was that he had anti-semitic pograms, shot anyone that didn't agree with him, and so on, they went as far as to say makhno was collaborating with a white army at the time he was actively engaged in fighting them.

Makhno of course had quite a load of flaws (the blatant hero worship, he often personally selected one or two members of the leading council), but I highly doubt shooting dissenters was one of them.

[sc4r]

I think the point is that you cant point to an anarchist contingent which failed (despite being supplied by non anarchists) and use it as evidence that Anarchist ideas on defence can work.

Other Marxists can point to where they have had organised revolts which worked. So, of course, can absolutely loads of non Marxist (but organised) movements.

I'm confused by your assertion that 'the anarchists are organised top down'. I'd have thought this was practically a definition of non-anarchist.

[Som]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 08:56 PM
I think the point is that you cant point to an anarchist contingent which failed (despite being supplied by non anarchists) and use it as evidence that Anarchist ideas on defence can work.

Other Marxists can point to where they have had organised revolts which worked. So, of course, can absolutely loads of non Marxist (but organised) movements.


Well, despite losing, it does provide quite a lot of evidence of an anarchist fighting force being effective (even if they lost, I think showing that they put up a good fight with what they had is evidence of an 'effective' system), and more so fight the claim that its simply impossible, or would be nothing but a lazy mob or whatever other assertions are usually made of the idea.




I'm confused by your assertion that 'the anarchists are organised top down'. I'd have thought this was practically a definition of non-anarchist.

oops, that was just a slip-up, ive fixed it now, I meant bottom-up.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 08:51 PM
Few anarchists agree with what they did there,
Actually, I've rarely seen any real criticism from anarchists - much less an attempt to explain HOW this could have happened. And when I bring it up, there's usually an attempt to make excuses for the CNT-FAI leadership.


but its important to understand why the participated with the government. It was the idea of the united front. At the time it seemed like fighting fascism came first and above all else. This was the basis that they worked with the government, that buddying up with the liberals and communists, who were desperately hoping the british and french would help them, would help them win the war.
Of course history proved them wrong, and the CNTs reformism isn't looked on too kindly, even by a lot of the anarchists of the time (hence the Friends of Durruti group), but with the idea of fighting fascism, its an understandable mistake.

Of course its fair to mention that nearly all of the left sold out in the same way, (taking land from the peasants and giving it to the former landlords, as well as aiding the burgiouse in general aren't exactly the acts of good communists) so it was more a consequence of what happened in spain, than any anarchist fault.

An explanation that explains nothing: WHY did this happen in Spain?

And yes, almost all organized tendencies in the Spanish workers' movement sold out. This doesn't really help anarchism, though, since it's basis for existence is its claim to be more radical than other tendencies - not a claim that "hey, we're not any bigger reformist sellouts than the social-democrats and Stalinists."

The Friends of Durruti, I'd agree, were subjectively revolutionaries. 'Course, they had to split from the CNT-FAI leadership, and were heading more and more away from anarchist doctrine towards recognizing the working class had to take power.




This is not an exception or a fluke; in every revolutionary crisis, where the question of power is at stake, anarchists have been unable to stick to their doctrines, and have supported, and at times participated in, one or another government.

What other examples are there of anarchists doing that? The only government I can think of the anarchists cozying up to at all was in spain.

The Bakuninists participated in, sometimes led provisional governments during 19th-century revolutions in Spain and France.

Kropotkin supported WWI, and Kerensky's government waging it.

Anarchists supported various governments during the Russian Revolution, from Makhno's to the Bolsheviks'. ("Soviet anarchists".)

[Som]

Actually, I've rarely seen any real criticism from anarchists - much less an attempt to explain HOW this could have happened. And when I bring it up, there's usually an attempt to make excuses for the CNT-FAI leadership.

Most of the sources ive read on the spanish civil war were critical about that, though they do explain why the made that descision, might sound like excuses.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI8.html#seci810

Bookchins work is also quite critical of them, though he's not exactly an anarchist anymore, a bit caught up in his 'libertarian municipalism' so im not so sure of his backing at the time he wrote it.


An explanation that explains nothing: WHY did this happen in Spain?

And yes, almost all organized tendencies in the Spanish workers' movement sold out. This doesn't really help anarchism, though, since it's basis for existence is its claim to be more radical than other tendencies - not a claim that "hey, we're not any bigger reformist sellouts than the social-democrats and Stalinists."

The Friends of Durruti, I'd agree, were subjectively revolutionaries. 'Course, they had to split from the CNT-FAI leadership, and were heading more and more away from anarchist doctrine towards recognizing the working class had to take power.


The Bakuninists participated in, sometimes led provisional governments during 19th-century revolutions in Spain and France.

Kropotkin supported WWI, and Kerensky's government waging it.

Anarchists supported various governments during the Russian Revolution, from Makhno's to the Bolsheviks'. ("Soviet anarchists".)

and people make mistakes, just because they consider themselves more radical than other tendencies hardly means they are unshakable ideologues. Its actually pretty obvious that anarchists will have a wide range of opinions on things, with some supporting what they feel is an improvement or progressive revolution instead of just anarchism or nothing (most of the time a mistake they paid for with their lives).

Its really quite futile to expect any group of people to maintain some sort of ideological purity like that, quite a few trends have called themselves more radical than the anarchists, usually killing a lot of people is considered quite radical. A line ive seen used a few times, usually about defending the revolution, is 'the problem with anarchism isn't that its too radical, its that its not radical enough. Whatever ideology those folks find you can point out just as many sellouts to.

I'd also disagree that the Friends of Durruti group were moving away from anarchist doctrine at all, nevermind any abstract notion of power, they were a split because of the reformist tendencies of the CNT, theyre collaboration with the government and that sort.

Kropotkins support of WWI alienated him quite a bit from the other anarchists. Didn't help that his reasoning for it was worse than anyones, I forget what it was exactly, but i do remember something about an anarchist revolution not being possible till the barbarian germans were crushed.

and makhno's wasn't a government, unless you're particularly keen on believing trotsky (as he commanded over the military campaign to destroy them, I would think that hardly makes him objective, or well, anything but a flat out liar)

[Morpheus]

In Spain the anarchists had the choice between supporting the Republic, allying with it against fascism, or attempting to complete the revolution and thereby launching a three-sided civil war. Fascists vs. Republicans vs. Anarchists. Doing that would have increased the chances of the Fascists winning, so they chose to ally with the Republic (a big mistake IMO). All major Spanish Marxist groups supported this, so if anarchism is to be condemned for it then so is Marxism. If you haven't read any anarchist criticism of this decision then you haven't read many anarchist analysises of the revolution; the vast majority of contemporary anarchists regard this decision as a mistake.

Probably the most successfull of anarchist militias was the Makhnovista in the Ukraine. They successfully defeated the Whites, Ukrainian Nationalists and Imperialists. They did not rely on the Red Army to win, they actually had to steal most of their ammunition from the whites and relied greatly on the local peasantry for local supplies. The Red Army were too busy fighting in Russia; the alliance between the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks did not provide much supplies or anything for the Makhnovists. Both "History of the Makhnovist Movement" by Peter Arishnov (a participant in the movement) and "The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno" by Michael Paij (a historian, and not an anarchist) and Malet's book all show this. The claim that the Makhnovists depended on Bolsheviks for support, and could only defeat their enemies because of this, cannot withstand any detailed history of the movement.

The claim that the Black Army shot bolshevik agitators is a lie. Bolsheviks lie all the time about the movement to justify their suppression of it (which they were able to do because of their superior rescources and the foolish mistake of allying with the Bolsheviks). Free Speech was practiced in the liberated areas and many groups including Bolsheviks, SRs and others had their own newspapers and propaganda. This is supported by Malet's book; Malet is a historian and not an anarchist. The Bolsheviks who were shot were not mere "agitators" but attempting to impose government and Red Terror on the peasantry and forcefully exterminate the movement.

In addition to the Makhnovists, which were quite successfull at defeating counter-revolutions (but not at defending themselves from back-stabbing "allies" with vastly superior rescources) there are many non-anarchist examples of partisan militias defeating professional armies. Afghani's against the Brits, then the Russians, Somali's against the US, Irsih against the Brits, Viet Minh & Vietcong, etc.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 11:42 PM
and makhno's wasn't a government, unless you're particularly keen on believing trotsky (as he commanded over the military campaign to destroy them, I would think that hardly makes him objective, or well, anything but a flat out liar)
Heh. Anyone who opposes you is automatically a liar? Sounds like totalitarian thinking to me.

Nobody is objective, including Trotsky obviously. But nobody has successfully challenged Trotsky's factual accuracy, either.

On the supposed present-day anarchist criticism of the CNT-FAI sellout, lemme just point out that the article linked earlier says nothing about that. Rather it points to the CNT-FAI's conduct as an example. Which it is...an example of how to be tragically, heroically defeated.

This is typical of most anarchist writing and statements I've seen about the Spanish Civil War.

[Som]

Heh. Anyone who opposes you is automatically a liar? Sounds like totalitarian thinking to me.

Nobody is objective, including Trotsky obviously. But nobody has successfully challenged Trotsky's factual accuracy, either.

The bolsheviks had a tendency to lie about the makhnovists, not only was it blatant, and theres quotes by bolsheviks like victor serge admitting pravda was full of shit in that regards.

Its not anyone that opposes you, its who has something to gain. But I see absolutly no reason trust the militarist commander high in the rankings of an oppressive government about a group that hes actively engaged in fighting. I don't consider what trotsky said about them worth anything.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech615

Thats quite a challenge to it.

http://www.nestormakhno.info/index.htm

Has both sides of the story in there.




On the supposed present-day anarchist criticism of the CNT-FAI sellout, lemme just point out that the article linked earlier says nothing about that. Rather it points to the CNT-FAI's conduct as an example. Which it is...an example of how to be tragically, heroically defeated.

This is typical of most anarchist writing and statements I've seen about the Spanish Civil War.

From that link:

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. As we discuss in sections I.8.11 and I.8.13, the biggest of these mistakes was forgetting basic anarchist ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems facing the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in Spain, the outcome of the Civil War and Revolution would have been different.

In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one that can be understood (due to the circumstances under which it was made), it cannot be justified in terms of anarchist theory. Indeed, as we argue in the next section, attempts by the CNT leadership to justify the decision in terms of anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be done without making a mockery of anarchism.

[TXsocialist]

anarchists still soar about not getting their way in the workers' revolution :)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:57 PM


On the supposed present-day anarchist criticism of the CNT-FAI sellout, lemme just point out that the article linked earlier says nothing about that. Rather it points to the CNT-FAI's conduct as an example. Which it is...an example of how to be tragically, heroically defeated.

This is typical of most anarchist writing and statements I've seen about the Spanish Civil War.

From that link:

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. As we discuss in sections I.8.11 and I.8.13, the biggest of these mistakes was forgetting basic anarchist ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems facing the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in Spain, the outcome of the Civil War and Revolution would have been different.

In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one that can be understood (due to the circumstances under which it was made), it cannot be justified in terms of anarchist theory. Indeed, as we argue in the next section, attempts by the CNT leadership to justify the decision in terms of anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be done without making a mockery of anarchism.
Heh. No, I meant the earlier article. This one:

How could an anarchist revolution defend itself? (http://www.anarchist-action.org/sections/anarchism/anarchistfaq/secJ7.html#secj76)

As I said, no criticism of the CNT-FAI, rather they are hailed as an example.

The one you're quoting, you only dug up in response to my criticisms. The web's a big place, and you can dig up an anarchist criticism of the CNT-FAI leadership, or an argument for why the world is flat, or anything else you want. It's not typical, though. No anarchist in this thread, or earlier threads on similar topics, said anything like that before I brought it up.

As anarchists are not conducting any widespread political education on why it was wrong to participate in Spain's bourgeois government, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do it again. (Widespread even in their own ranks, that is.)

Quite the opposite. The 1930s Spanish anarchist movement at least had a working-class composition. The rank-and-file attempted to act in a revolutionary manner. A section of organized anarchism, even, broke off in a revolutionary direction, the Friends of Durruti. That would be unlikely to happen again.

Today, anarchism has less and less to do with the working class...less and less tries to, even, as Murray Bookchin (who you mentioned) has pointed out in "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism." Which severely diminishes the prospect of anything revolutionary developing out of anarchism.

Edit: LOL! Upon closer examination, it becomes clear your link as well is criticizing the CNT-FAI sellout in response to communist criticism, not, say, in order to educate against future sellouts. From the beginning of the first section addressing the issue:


The question must arise, why did the C.N.T decide to collaborate with the state, forsaking its principles and, in its own way, contribute to the counter-revolution and the loosing of the war. This is an important question. Indeed, it is one Marxists always throw up in arguments with anarchists or in anti-anarchist diatribes. Does the failure of the C.N.T to implement anarchism after July 19th mean that anarchist politics are flawed? Or, rather, does the experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I during the Spanish revolution indicate a failure of anarchists rather than of anarchism, a mistake made under difficult objective circumstances and one which anarchists have learnt from?

See, it's an important question because.... "it is one Marxists always throw up".

After that, is nothing but confusion; it speaks as if there were no alternatives beyond joining a government or its immediate, by-yourself, without-involving-other-revolutionary-minded-workers, armed overthrow. And the stuff against the anti-fascist militias committee on the basis that it was a united front of leaders, not the ranks...the Stalinists said the same thing in the early 30s. For them, it was an excuse to avoid uniting with any workers who insisted on following leaders the Stalinists disapproved of, and it's no different when it comes from anarchists.

If the CNT's betrayal - not "mistake" - is "one which anarchists have learnt from", it's not evident there.

[Som]

anarchists still soar about not getting their way in the workers' revolution

Well, being jailed and shot didn't exactly make them happy little proles either.


Now, on to the nitpicking


Heh. No, I meant the earlier article. This one:

How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?

As I said, no criticism of the CNT-FAI, rather they are hailed as an example.

The one you're quoting, you only dug up in response to my criticisms. The web's a big place, and you can dig up an anarchist criticism of the CNT-FAI leadership, or an argument for why the world is flat, or anything else you want. It's not typical, though. No anarchist in this thread, or earlier threads on similar topics, said anything like that before I brought it up.

Take a closer look, its a different part of the exact same source, The anarchist faq.

Not only that, but in the context of that article, that the CNT screwed up is just irrelevent. Its a brief summary of "How could an anarchist revolution defend itself?", not an anarchist history. Reformist leaders during a specific historical period isn't a vital point for the generalized summary of defense. Its like expecting a rant about soviet reformism in the middle of 'che guevara on guerilla warfare'.

Every anarchist history of spain I've read has made mention and criticism of the CNTs descisions, so this is just unsourced assertion against unsourced assertion.


Today, anarchism has less and less to do with the working class...less and less tries to, even, as Murray Bookchin (who you mentioned) has pointed out in "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism." Which severely diminishes the prospect of anything revolutionary developing out of anarchism.

Less and less? as far as I know, anarchism is a growing political trend, especially after the collapse of the soviet union.


See, it's an important question because.... "it is one Marxists always throw up".

Ah, nitpicking against a document that was produced in a huge part in response to online debates, a good portion of which were probably with marxists.


After that, is nothing but confusion; it speaks as if there were no alternatives beyond joining a government or its immediate, by-yourself, without-involving-other-revolutionary-minded-workers, armed overthrow.

Care to elaborate on these other options that the anarchists could've taken?
The only 'other-revolutionary-minded-workers' group that actually was willing to work with the anarchists were the POUM, who were non-stalinist marxists, the anarchists did work with them rather extensively, a descision that didn't go without its criticism.