CubanFox
8th August 2004, 07:10
I am new to the study of anarchism. People like Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin are merely faces to me, they don't represent anything in my mind the way the bearded faces of Marx and Lenin do.
But anyway, enough rambling. I have several questions about anarchism, more specifically on the implementation and sustainment of it.
Please remember I'm not at all trying to be smug and snide with the "how is your ideology supposed to work, anyway?" tone, I'd like to learn. Really!
What is there to stop reactionaries simply wiping your communes and collectives off the map? Socialists have organised militaries, security forces, militias, etc to deal with this. What do anarchists do?
Beyond the armies of teenaged poseurs, how widespread is the anarchist ideology? What chances are there of an anarchist society in the future?
Who are the "pillars of anarchism"? People that have the word written on their foreheads, people that are to anarchism as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che are to socialism.
What is there to prevent anarchist socities from collapsing in on themselves? What acts as the "foundations" of anarchism, preventing the whole thing from just falling to pieces, even after the reactionaries are gone? In socialism, this is what the state is there for.
My assumption is that anarchists hope to take power by violent revolution. Is this correct?
Historically, why have socialists hated you anarchists so very passionately?
There we are. Any anarchists out there, I'd be very grateful if you could help.
wet blanket
8th August 2004, 19:42
I'll dig up some answers from the infoshop.org Anarchist FAQ... It elaborates pretty well on these questions...
What is there to stop reactionaries simply wiping your communes and collectives off the map? Socialists have organised militaries, security forces, militias, etc to deal with this. What do anarchists do
To some, particularly Marxists, this section may seem in contradiction with anarchist ideas. After all, did Marx not argue in a diatribe against Proudhon that anarchist "abolishing the state" implies the "laying down of arms" by the working class? However, as will become very clear nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists have always argued for defending a revolution -- by force, if necessary. Anarchists do not think that abolishing the state involves "laying down arms." We argue that Marx (and Marxists) confuse self-defence by "the people armed" with the state, a confusion which has horrific implications (as the history of the Russian Revolution shows -- see section H.6 for details).
So how would an anarchist revolution (and by implication, society) defend itself? Firstly, we should note that it will not defend itself by creating a centralised body, a new state. If it did this then the revolution will have failed and a new class society would have been created (a society based on state bureaucrats and oppressed workers as in the Soviet Union). Thus we reject Marx's notion of "a revolutionary and transitory form" of state as confused in the extreme. [Marx quoted by Lenin, Essential Works of Lenin, p. 315] Rather, we seek libertarian means to defend a libertarian revolution. What would these libertarian means be?
History, as well as theory, points to them. In all the major revolutions of this century which anarchists took part in they formed militias to defend freedom. For example, anarchists in many Russian cities formed "Black Guards" to defend their expropriated houses and revolutionary freedoms. In the Ukraine, Nestor Makhno helped organise a peasant-worker army to defend the social revolution against authoritarians of right and left. In the Spanish Revolution, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. organised militias to free those parts of Spain under fascist rule after the military coup in 1936.
(As an aside, we must point out that these militias had nothing in common -- bar the name -- with the present "militia movement" in the United States. The anarchist militias were organised in a libertarian manner and aimed to defend an anti-statist, anti-capitalist revolution from pro-state, pro-capitalist forces. In contrast, the US "militia movement" is organised in a military fashion, defend property rights and want to create their own governments.)
These anarchist militias were as self-managed as possible, with any "officers" elected and accountable to the troops and having the same pay and living conditions as them. Nor did they impose their ideas on others. When a militia liberated a village, town or city they called upon the population to organise their own affairs, as they saw fit. All the militia did was present suggestions and ideas to the population. For example, when the Makhnovists passed through a district they would put on posters announcing:
"The freedom of the workers and the peasants is their own, and not subject to any restriction. It is up to the workers and peasants to act, to organise themselves, to agree among themselves in all aspects of their lives, as they themselves see fit and desire. . . The Makhnovists can do no more than give aid and counsel . . . In no circumstances can they, nor do they wish to, govern."
Needless to say, the Makhnovists counselled the workers and peasants "to set up free peasants' and workers' councils" as well as to expropriate the land and means of production. They argued that "[f]reedom of speech, of the press and of assembly is the right of every toiler and any gesture contrary to that freedom constitutes an act of counter-revolution." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 157-8] The Makhnovists also organised regional congresses of peasants and workers to discuss revolutionary and social issues (a fact that annoyed the Bolsheviks, leading to Trotsky trying to ban one congress and arguing that "participation in said congress will be regarded as an act of high treason." [Op. Cit., p. 151] Little wonder workers' democracy withered under the Bolsheviks!).
The Makhnovists declared principles were voluntary enlistment, the election of officers and self-discipline according to the rules adopted by each unit themselves. Remarkably effective, the Makhnovists were the force that defeated Denikin's army and helped defeat Wrangel. After the Whites were defeated, the Bolsheviks turned against the Makhnovists and betrayed them. However, while they existed the Makhnovists defended the freedom of the working class to organise themselves against both right and left statists. See Voline's The Unknown Revolution and Peter Arshinov' History of the Makhnovist Movement for more information or section H.11 of this FAQ.
A similar situation developed in Spain. After defeating the military/fascist coup on 19th of July, 1936, the anarchists organised self-managed militias to liberate those parts of Spain under Franco. These groups 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]
Like the Makhnovists, the anarchist militias in Spain were not only fighting against reaction, they were fighting for a better world. As Durruti argued, "Our comrades on the front know for whom and for what they fight. They feel themselves revolutionaries and they fight, not in defence of more or less promised new laws, but for the conquest of the world, of the factories, the workshops, the means of transportation, their bread and the new culture." [Op. Cit., p. 248]
When they liberated towns and villages, the militia columns urged workers and peasants to collectivise the land and means of production, to re-organise life in a libertarian fashion. All across anti-Fascist Spain workers and peasants did exactly that (see section I.8 for more information). The militias only defended the workers' and peasants' freedom to organise their own lives as they saw fit and did not force them to create collectives or dictate their form.
Unfortunately, like the Makhnovists, the C.N.T. militias were betrayed by their so-called allies on the left. The anarchist troops were not given enough arms and were left on the front to rot in inaction. The "unified" command by the Republican State preferred not to arm libertarian troops as they would use these arms to defend themselves and their fellow workers against the Republican and Communist led counter-revolution. Ultimately, the "people in arms" won the revolution and the "People's army" which replaced it lost the war. See Abel Paz's Durruti: The People Armed, Vernon Richards Lessons of the Spanish Revolution and George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia for more information.
While the cynic may point out that, in the end, these revolutions and militias were defeated, it does not mean that their struggle was in vain or a future revolution will not succeed. That would be like arguing in 1940 that democracy is inferior to fascism because the majority of democratic states had been (temporarily) defeated by fascism or fascist states. It does not mean that these methods will fail in the future or that we should embrace apparently more "successful" approaches which end in the creation of a society the total opposite of what we desire (means determine ends, after all, and statist means will create statist ends and apparent "successes" -- like Bolshevism -- are the greatest of failures in terms of our ideas and ideals). All we are doing here is pointing how anarchists have defended revolutions in the past and that these methods were successful for a long time in face of tremendous opposition forces.
Thus, in practice, anarchists have followed Malatesta's argument for 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." [Op. Cit., p. 166] This militia would be based on an armed population and "[t]he 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 sacrifices." [Vernon Richards, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 44] It does not seek to impose a revolution, for you cannot impose freedom or force people to be free against their will.
Hence anarchists would seek to defend a revolution because, while anarchism "is opposed to any interference with your liberty . . . [and] against all invasion and violence" it recognises that when "any one attacks you, then it is he who is invading you, he who is employing violence against you. You have a right to defend yourself. More than that, it is your duty, as an anarchist to protect your liberty, to resist coercion and compulsion. . . In other words, the social revolution will attack no one, but it will defend itself against invasion from any quarter." [Alexander Berkman, ABC of Anarchism, p. 81]
As Berkman stresses, this revolutionary defence "must be in consonance with th[e] spirit [of anarchism]. Self-defence excludes all acts of coercion, of persecution or revenge. It is concerned only with repelling attack and depriving the enemy of opportunity to invade you." Any defence would be based on "the strength of the revolution . . . First and foremost, in the support of the people . . . If they feel that they themselves are making the revolution, that they have become masters of their lives, that they have gained freedom and are building up their welfare, then in that very sentiment you have the greatest strength of the revolution. . . Let them believe in the revolution, and they will defend it to the death." Thus the "armed workers and peasants are the only effective defence of the revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 81-81]
Part of this strength lies in liberty, so no attempt would be made to "defend" the revolution against mere talk, against the mere expression of an opinion. To "suppress speech and press is not only a theoretical offence against liberty; it is a direct blow at the very foundations of the revolution. . . It would generate fear and distrust, would hatch conspiracies, and culminate in a reign of terror which has always killed revolution in the pass." [Op. Cit., p. 83]
Moreover, in the case of foreign intervention, the importance of international solidarity is important. As Bakunin argued, "a social revolution cannot be a revolution in one nation alone. It is by nature an international revolution." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 49] Thus any foreign intervention would face the problems of solidarity actions and revolts on its own doorstep and not dare send its troops abroad for long, if at all. Ultimately, the only way to support a revolution is to make your own.
Within the revolutionary area, it is the actions of liberated people than will defend it. Firstly, the population would be armed and so counter-revolutionaries would face stiff opposition to their attempts to recreate authority. Secondly, they would face liberated individuals who would reject their attempts:
"The only way in which a state of Anarchy can be obtained is for each man [or woman] who is oppressed to act as if he [or she] were at liberty, in defiance of all authority to the contrary . . . In practical fact, territorial extension is necessary to ensure permanency to any given individual revolution. In speaking of the Revolution, we signify the aggregate of so many successful individual and group revolts as will enable every person within the revolutionised territory to act in perfect freedom . . . without having to constantly dread the prevention or the vengeance of an opposing power upholding the former system . . . Under these circumstance it is obvious that any visible reprisal could and would be met by a resumption of the same revolutionary action on the part of the individuals or groups affected, and that the maintenance of a state of Anarchy in this manner would be far easier than the gaining of a state of Anarchy by the same methods and in the face of hitherto unshaken opposition." [Kropotkin, Op. Cit., pp. 87-8]
Thus any authoritarian would face the direct action of a free people, of free individuals, who would refuse to co-operate with the would-be authorities and join in solidarity with their friends and fellow workers to resist them. The only way a counter-revolution could spread internally is if the mass of the population can become alienated from the revolution and this is impossible in an anarchist revolution as power remains in their hands. If power rests in their hands, there is no danger from counter-revolutionaries.
In the end, an anarchist revolution can be defended only by applying its ideas as widely as possible. Its defence rests in those who make it. If the revolution is an expression of their needs, desires and hopes then it will be defended with the full passion of a free people. Such a revolution may be defeated by superior force, who can tell? But the possibility is that it will not and that is what makes it worth trying. To not act because of the possibility of failure is to live half a life. Anarchism calls upon everyone to live the kind of life they deserve as unique individuals and desire as human beings. Individually we can make a difference, together we can change the world.
How would an anarchist society defend against the power-hungry? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci513)
[quote]Beyond the armies of teenaged poseurs, how widespread is the anarchist ideology? What chances are there of an anarchist society in the future?
I can't answer this question very well, but I can assure you that the anarchist movement is growing rapidly. Most of them are young radicals, however in today's environment, radical and activist movements are quickly gaining momentum.
Who are the "pillars of anarchism"? People that have the word written on their foreheads, people that are to anarchism as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che are to socialism.
R. Rocker, M. Bakunin, and of course P. Kropotkin are all probably the most important figures in Anarchist thought. There are a lot that I'm leaving out here, but these three are great starting points.
What is there to prevent anarchist socities from collapsing in on themselves? What acts as the "foundations" of anarchism, preventing the whole thing from just falling to pieces, even after the reactionaries are gone? In socialism, this is what the state is there for.
A "blueprint" of an anarchist society (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI2.html)
What could the economic structure of anarchy look like? (http://infoshop.org/faq/secI3.html)
My assumption is that anarchists hope to take power by violent revolution. Is this correct?
Depends on who you ask.
Historically, why have socialists hated you anarchists so very passionately?
Well, in a sense, anarchists ARE socialists. So the conflict isn't really between anarchists and socialists as they are both socialists... Rather, the conflict is between people who believe that there must be a state or vanguard party to exercise authority over the socialism and those that do not. The most notable intellectual rivalry between state-socialism and anarchism was Marx and Bakunin, but I don't necessarily think either of them hated each other.
apathy maybe
12th August 2004, 03:35
I have recently realised that the perfect world would be an Anarchist one. Comrade Blackberry (Formally Comrade James), wrote a nice piece on what makes an Anarchist an anarchist, <http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25915>. He outlines what he thinks are the 4 basic points; Non-Hierarchy, Direct Democracy, Voluntarism and Due Process. Looking at these, you could well say that Anarchism is a broad philosophy.
And that is what makes it so diverse. Thus answers to your questions are not simple.
@What is there to stop reactionaries simply wiping your communes and collectives off the map? Socialists have organised militaries, security forces, militias, etc to deal with this. What do anarchists do?
There is nothing to stop an Anarchist society having militias or security forces. There may not be room for large scale armies, but that is a good thing.
@Beyond the armies of teenaged poseurs, how widespread is the anarchist ideology?
I don’t know, but if you think about what anarchism entails (reading the link above is a good start), you to should be an anarchist.
@What chances are there of an anarchist society in the future?
Considering that anarchism is such a broad term, I consider it quite likely. What type you may ask, that I can’t answer.
@Who are the "pillars of anarchism"? People that have the word written on their foreheads, people that are to anarchism as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che are to socialism.
A few have already been mentioned, but really there is no one person, or small group of people.
@What is there to prevent anarchist societies from collapsing in on themselves? What acts as the "foundations" of anarchism, preventing the whole thing from just falling to pieces, even after the reactionaries are gone?
What acts as the foundation of capitalism? And don’t say the state. The answer is people’s apathy and feeling that life is good. It is only when people are hungry (etc) that they revolt. If someone tried to form a capitalist society, well we have our militias to stop ‘em.
@My assumption is that anarchists hope to take power by violent revolution. Is this correct?
Depends on whom you ask.
@Historically, why have [Leninists] hated you anarchists so very passionately?
I believe that this is because Anarchists are essentially anti-hierarchy. Leninists like hierarchy for some reason.
(I just realised that some of my answers are the same as above! Oh well.)
PRC-UTE
12th August 2004, 05:37
What is there to stop reactionaries simply wiping your communes and collectives off the map? Socialists have organised militaries, security forces, militias, etc to deal with this. What do anarchists do?
in the spanish civil war, the anarchists organized militias and armed as many of the workers as possible. That wouldn't be as difficult to do in a country like the USA.
In Spain it was not the reactionaries who dismantled the collectives, but the agents of stalin.
Beyond the armies of teenaged poseurs, how widespread is the anarchist ideology? What chances are there of an anarchist society in the future?
good question. The I.W.W. is getting much more organized, there's a thread on this site about their efforts and there seems to be a general rise in the amount of anarchist activity.
In many areas I've been, anarchists make up the largest part of the left.
Who are the "pillars of anarchism"? People that have the word written on their foreheads, people that are to anarchism as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Che are to socialism.
the anarchists thinkers who have been the most influential include Bueneventura Durruti, Rudolph Rocker and Nestor Makhno.
What is there to prevent anarchist socities from collapsing in on themselves? What acts as the "foundations" of anarchism, preventing the whole thing from just falling to pieces, even after the reactionaries are gone? In socialism, this is what the state is there for.
the working class.
My assumption is that anarchists hope to take power by violent revolution. Is this correct?
class struggle primarily, which probably would entail some violence. There have been many ex's of anarchists, such as in Spain, rising up and capturing strategic points and "declaring libertario communismo"
Historically, why have socialists hated you anarchists so very passionately?
unless it's a specific instance, hard to say.
redtrigger
3rd September 2004, 15:43
If people grouped together under one banner to overthrow the government and replace it with anarchy wouldn't the revolution be against the principles of anarchy because the people joined together, anarchy is supposed to be every one for themselves, right?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.