Anarchism and industry

[Unicorn]

As Engels said in his essay "On Authority" "wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel".

Engels pointed out industry would be much less productive under anarchism than under socialism or capitalism. Likely anarchists would have little success producing anything of value. Drastic reductions in industrial production would lead to collapse in living standard, starvation and death in the world.

Various anarchist theoreticians have disputed Engels's conclusions but in the real world anarchism has always failed when it has been tried. One sad example is Anarchist Catalonia. The anarchists were unable to effectively organize industrial production there which was a major cause of the loss in the war.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One sad example is Anarchist Catalonia. The anarchists were unable to effectively organize industrial production there which was a major cause of the loss in the war.

Actually, most of the CNT run factories were vertically integrated, so I guess you could argue that they didn't fit anarchist ideals. And ultimately this wasn't as big a factor as several other things, including sectarian infighting and the overall military superiority of Franco's troops.

And, incidentally, Engels seems to be making the same kind of argument that many capitalists make when it comes to socialism and democracy in the workplace. As in, "democracy is fine when it comes to government, but when it comes to business, there needs to be leaders who give orders and workers who follow orders". It seems to me that the classic straw man against anarchism is coming into play here, that anarchists reject all authority and order, and will run around, out of control, screaming "AAANNNUURRRKKKYYY!" But the fact is that most anarchists factor in authority into the equation regarding industry: the authority that is derived from genuine workplace democracy and consensus. In fact, I've seen studies that have shown that when workers feel that they have a real vested interest in their work, and feel like they have some say in what happens at their workplace, not only does worker satisfaction go up, but productivity doesn't go down; in fact, in some cases, it goes up.

This work by Bakunin is relevant, I think.

http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html

[mykittyhasaboner]

One sad example is Anarchist Catalonia. The anarchists were unable to effectively organize industrial production there which was a major cause of the loss in the war.
well when talking about catalonian anarchists keep in mind they were a relatively small group and had the stalinists and fascists trying to obliterate them, so they were at a constant state of alert. so the quality of organization was very weak because they were desperately trying to hold back the enemy fronts and only had so much to work with.

[Cult of Reason]

As Engels said in his essay "On Authority" "wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel".

Engels pointed out industry would be much less productive under anarchism than under socialism or capitalism. Likely anarchists would have little success producing anything of value. Drastic reductions in industrial production would lead to collapse in living standard, starvation and death in the world.

How very interesting. Engels probably said a lot of things. A typical 'appeal to authority' argument (how ironic) from yet another Leninist troll. Why not post Engels' reasoning to our scrutiny rather than using his name as a validator for anything you wish to spew forth? Better yet, post your own reasoning and show that you are not some duckspeaking automaton.


The anarchists were unable to effectively organize industrial production there which was a major cause of the loss in the war.

I would be interested in finding out what your sources are, because it contradicts what I have read previously. I have read that, in fact, production in factories and farms increased after Anarchist collectivisation, so I call bullshit.


Actually, most of the CNT run factories were vertically integrated, so I guess you could argue that they didn't fit anarchist ideals.

Please explain. Vertically integrated could mean anything, from direct autocratic control to directly democratic federalism, the latter of which is very much in keeping with Anarchist ideals. If you mean the former, then please provide a source.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Please explain. Vertically integrated could mean anything, from direct autocratic control to directly democratic federalism, the latter of which is very much in keeping with Anarchist ideals. If you mean the former, then please provide a source.

It's mentioned in a book I had read called The Battle For Spain.

Actually, they also mention in the book that production in Aragon went up 20% during the revolution. So I'm not exactly sure to what extent industry in Spain stagnated.

[Unicorn]

How very interesting. Engels probably said a lot of things. A typical 'appeal to authority' argument (how ironic) from yet another Leninist troll. Why not post Engels' reasoning to our scrutiny rather than using his name as a validator for anything you wish to spew forth? Better yet, post your own reasoning and show that you are not some duckspeaking automaton.
I thought mentioning the name of the essay suffices as it is famous.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Modern post-industrial society is very complex. Producing computers or fighter jets would not be possible in small workshops.



I would be interested in finding out what your sources are, because it contradicts what I have read previously. I have read that, in fact, production in factories and farms increased after Anarchist collectivisation, so I call bullshit.
For example, one Anarchist observer reported that "Notwithstanding lavish expenditures of money on this need, our industrial organization was not able to finish a single kind of rifle or machine gun or cannon".
(Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Revolution, (1970))

[Unicorn]

The experience of the Spanish anarchists shows that autonomous collectives can't overcome the marketplace

by Joseph Green, Detroit

. A key question which Greg Jackson and the other anarchists and Libertarians can't deal with is how to eliminate the power of the marketplace. Mr. Jackson fumes against my article "Anarchism and the marketplace", but he won't directly deal with my assertion that
"a nagging question remains. Even if the government were eliminated, would oppression end? What about the power of the giant corporations? Some of them are as large and wealthy as many governments, and employ as many people. What about the power of the marketplace? Doesn't it ravage forests, pollute water, condemn tens and hundreds of millions of people to poverty and toil, as brutally as any government? (emphasis added)"

. I pointed out that
"when production is carried out by independent enterprises, whether communally owned or run by profiteers, this is not the basis of freedom, but ultimately it is the basis of oppression. It means that the various enterprises and workers are connected, not by any conscious plan, but by the rule of market forces, by the result of thousands of transactions among the separate groups. And the market forces inevitably give rise to a division of rich and poor, to monopoly, and to the oppression of the poor by the rich."

. What does the Black Autonomy Collective offer as an alternative to the marketplace? If we look at the next to last page of any issue of "Black Autonomy", we find the "unified position statement of Black Autonomy newspaper and affiliated Black Autonomist (anarchist) activists in the United States". It is entitled "Anarchism + black revolution = new black autonomous politics". It states that "The new autonomous politics is made up of the anti-authoritarian core of Anarchism and many of the tenets of revolutionary Black nationalism". But despite its mention of revolution, one will find just about nothing about what this revolution is supposed to do. Oh yes, it mentions a "revolutionary project to defeat the system of capitalism and enslavement . . ." But it don't say how it envisages this, and how capitalism and the marketplace will be overcome. We're just supposed to take their word for it that their plans are capable of doing this.

. Jackson refers us to the example of Spain in 1936-39. He tells us that
"anarchism was practiced in mass scale most recently in Spain from 1936-39. By most accounts (including Marxist-Leninist), the Spanish working class organizations such as the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) and the FAI (Federation of Anarchists of Iberia) seized true direct workers' power and in fact kept people alive during a massive civil war."

. His implication is that the Spanish anarchists really did overcome the marketplace and were so successful that the anarchist areas were the breadbasket for the Spanish Republic in its losing battle against Franco's fascists from 1936-39.

. This example is important for Jackson, who presents himself as the practical activist par excellence, above all "dogma". He implies that he knows what's right not because of the hated theory, but because it actually works! After all, he says, "Any theory which cannot, at the very least, be demonstrated in miniature scale . . . in daily life is not even worth serious discussion because it is rigid dogma of the worst kind." So he had better have an example, or else his anarchism is condemned by his own words as "rigid dogma of the worst kind". Well, Jackson can't seem to find a convincing one from "daily life", but at least he can find one sometime in this century. And that example is the Spanish Civil War.


The Spanish example refutes the anarchists

. So let's look at this example. Let's not begrudge the time and effort it takes, for the example of the Spanish Civil War collectives is indeed a fascinating one that will repay serious study. And it is one of the main examples used not just by Jackson and the anarchist nationalists, but by most anarchists. There are many examples of isolated anarchist colonies, but they didn't prove durable. The Spanish Civil War provides about the only example of anarchist collectives embracing both agriculture and industry, the countryside and the city, on a mass scale. But this example shows that the anarchists were incapable of overcoming the power of the marketplace, and ended up blaming the masses for their "utilitarian and petty bourgeois spirit" (as we shall, in a moment, see the CNT saying) rather than admitting that anarchist dogma was at fault.

. The 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. Thus the anarchists believed that once they had collectivized the village communities or taken over the workplaces in the cities, that they had abolished capitalism, money, and all government. In fact, this proved not to be the case, and anarchism proved unable to understand what was going on and unable to provide revolutionary guidance to the workers and peasants of Spain. Among other things, market forces asserted themselves among the anarchist-led collectives, providing a vivid illustration of the point made in my article "Anarchism and the marketplace". It wasn't just the major hardships of the Spanish Civil War that plagued the collectives, but the economic relations (or lack of them) between the collectives. The inability of the system of independent collectives to overcome inequality and other problems was noted by serious commentators on the Civil War of various trends, including those who are quite sympathetic to the anarchists. Indeed, as we shall see shortly, at the time this was taking place, some prominent Spanish anarchists and the CNT union themselves noted these problems, but they didn't know what to do about it. This can only be denied by the wishful thinking of present-day anarchists, who make Spain into a legend but refuse to study what actually happened.

. It's not that the collectives were a failure in themselves. Just prior to and during the Civil War, large numbers of toilers rose up to take over the agrarian communities in some regions of Spain and workplaces in Barcelona and some other cities. Some collectives and cooperatives worked well, some didn't, and some were even imposed on the toilers. But all in all, this was the masses starting to take things into their own hands, and they showed that they could continue production in their workplaces without the whip of the big landlords and bloated parasites. 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. A vast organizational task faces the oppressed masses who are rising up to eliminate the old exploiting system, but anarchist theory just brushes aside this problem -- coordination between collective would supposedly be easily accomplished by "mutual aid" or "voluntary cooperation" or, if absolutely need be, by the weakest possible federation. The anarchist theory was then, as now, allergic to centralism and central planning. The anarchists didn't and don't understand that a new centralism -- compatible with and requiring the initiative of the workers at the base -- has to be built up if capitalism is to be overcome. For them, democracy at the base and centralism are incompatible; they identify centralism with tyranny; and when they talked about "self-management" they meant collectives that are autonomous and independent. Faced with the need for coordination and planning and class-wide action in the Spanish Civil War, the anarchists were in a quandary. They ended up adopting more and more of the plans of their opponents, such as the reformist socialists, the Stalinists (fake communists), and the liberal bourgeoisie. Grumbling and stumbling, the anarchists accepted these plans, not just as a compromise, but because they had no independent idea about how to accomplish the needed centralism. They didn't know how to counterpose revolutionary centralism and class-wide consciousness to the bureaucracy of the reformists, Stalinists and liberal bourgeoisie.

. The problems facing the anarchist collectives weren't due to their leaders not being fully dedicated or committed anarchists, as the BAC's Jackson implies. The real, long-time Spanish anarchists led a large section of those revolutionary Spanish workers and peasants who hated the bourgeoisie and capitalism. They were in the forefront of the movement to establish collectives (there were also collectives and cooperatives organized by other forces). The anarchist-led agrarian collectives were concentrated in Aragon and the Levante, and for about a year the anarchists had a pretty free hand with them, and the anarchist stronghold of Barcelona was a key center of the revolutionary workers' movement in Spain. This system only had a short time to develop. But even in the first year, economic forces arose among the collectives that the anarchists didn't know what to do about. And there is good reason to believe that the problem of coordination would only have become worse if the anarchist experiment had lasted longer.

Equality

. 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 equalize conditions among themselves through "mutual aid" and solidarity. This did not happen. The various agrarian collectives organized themselves in varying ways, and might in some cases pool the community's goods in a central storehouse. But these collectives faced economic conditions that varied dramatically from community to community, and factory to factory, and the living conditions between different collectives continued to vary dramatically. David Miller, a most sympathetic critic of the anarchists, refers in his book Anarchism to the universal admission of all commentators that conditions varied greatly among the Spanish collectives, with peasants at some agricultural collectives making three times that of peasants at other collectives. Miller concludes that "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."(1)

. What happened to "mutual aid" among the collectives? The collectives didn't display that much interest in equalizing conditions among themselves, although they might see the point of supporting the struggle against fascism, for they feared the fascist troops would ravage their community and restore the rich to control of the land. Miller says that "rural communities were more likely to send their surpluses to the militias on the front and to the cities than to one another".(2) This happened even though in "Aragon and the Levante -- the two major areas in which [agrarian] collectivization was able to proceed relatively unhindered", the anarchist regional federations took mutual aid and redistribution among collectives quite seriously, as "one of their primary tasks". 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.

. A similar phenomenon took place among worker collectives in the city of Barcelona, which was the main center of anarchist industrial collectives. The workers took over the factories, but anarchist principles could not establish durable cooperation among these factories. The anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each factory as owned simply by the workers that labored there, and not by the working class as a whole. This was noted at the time by the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union itself, the CNT. One of its commissions referred to the failure of the collectives to work together properly and stated that "By regarding each collective as private property [of the workers of that workplace], and not merely as its usufruct, the interests of the rest of the collective have been disregarded. . . . The collectivized firms are solely concerned with their [own] liabilities, leading to an imbalance in the finances of other firms." It claimed that "a utilitarian and petty bourgeois spirit" was manifesting itself among the masses.(3) In short, the CNT noted that the workers regarded themselves as owners of their own particular workplace, rather than seeing their workplace as the property of the entire working class, which grants them the right ("usufruct") to operate it on their behalf. And it identifies the result of this as a lack of coordination.

. How did the anarchists relate the various workplace collectives to each other in Barcelona? Despite anarchist declarations against money, they made use of a patchwork system including a Central Labor Bank, an Economic Council, credit, cash purchases, requisitioning, etc. They not only were unable to eliminate money and capitalist accounting, but had to organize forms of banking and finance. Moreover, the growing polarization among the collectives was reflected in many of them losing their independence. The poor collectives needed funds to pay wages, and many obtained these funds by mortgaging their workplace's equipment and stockpiles to the bourgeois Catalan government of the "Generalitat".(4) As a result of the operation of this "pawn bank," as it was called, the control of these workplaces passed in essence to the Catalan government.

. No wonder that the anarchist Horacio Prieto, member of the national committee of the CNT and at one time its secretary (leader), cried out in pain:
. "The collectivism we are living in Spain is not anarchist collectivism, it is the creation of a new capitalism, more inorganic than the old capitalist system we have destroyed . . . Rich collectives refuse to recognize any responsibilities, duties or solidarity towards poor collectives . . . No one understands the complexities of the economy, the dependence of one industry on another." (January 6, 1938) (5)

. And yet this is the same Spanish collectivism that the BAC's Greg Jackson assures us proves that marketplace forces will not operate among autonomous collectives.


The failure of the anarchist method of abolishing money

. Let's take a further look at anarchist theory in light of the Spanish experience. The anarchists had believed that simply taking over the workplaces and village communities would suffice to abolish money. One author describes the process in the countryside as follows:
. "In Binéfor, as in the other 450 collectivized Aragon towns, money was declared abolished. Anarchists rejected it as the root of everything they abhorred. An economy based totally on barter being impractical, the committee issued coupons in 5-, 6- and 7-peseta denominations. The value of all male work, whether performed by doctor or truck driver, was fixed at 7 pesetas a day. Women . . . got 5 pesetas. The old currency was not seized, and a black market flourished. Some services were available only to collectivists. Whoever chose not to join the system could not get a haircut; the only barber shop did not cater to individualistas."(6)

. Thus having begun by abolishing money, the local committee of the autonomous commune proceeded to issue local coupons that functioned as local money.(7) It didn't strike the anarchists to consider whether their local coupons served the role of money. For the anarchists, money only meant the hated national banknotes, while local currency was not -- in their eyes -- money at all. Meanwhile the necessity for the collective to deal with other collectives, and as well to provide money to peasants visiting other parts of Spain, resulted in a patchwork system. According to Miller, the inconvenience of this system resulted in the "growing belief, in anarchist circles, that a uniform national currency was after all a good thing."(8)

. The collectives carried out a number of measures which were probably of great value to the local population. This included rationing of some key goods, such as wheat and wine, and financing some services -- such as barber shops, apothecaries, etc. -- by the collective instead of by fees from individuals. The excitement at the peasants actually deciding matters and at these new methods of dealing with economic hardship no doubt appeared to many as the abolition of the old capitalism. But these steps do not in themselves go beyond capitalism, and indeed have been used by capitalist governments, as seen in rationing and in national health insurance, public education systems, public library systems, etc. Indeed, some of these measures actually increase the power of government, but the anarchists didn't see local government as government -- more about that in a moment. The main point here is that the anarchists saw only the surface features of money -- the banknote issued by the financial institutions of the rich and powerful -- and not the real economic features of money.

. The problem is not that the anarchists couldn't accomplish the impossible -- the immediate abolition of money. This failure discredits their anarchist theory, but it doesn't in itself fault the practical actions taken by the anarchists in organizing the collectives. 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. With their view that local government and local coupons aren't really government and money, they couldn't understand the need for social control over the economy, control by all of the working people as a whole, if steps towards abolishing capitalism were to be made. For them centralism = authoritarianism = capitalism, and they had no idea that their simple equations doomed them to be victims of marketplace forces.

. From the point of view of Marxist theory, it is not surprising that money cannot be done away with at once. Marxism recognizes the need for a relatively lengthy transitional period between the start of the social revolution and the attainment of a classless society which has done away with government, money, etc. During this transitional period, the workers have to learn to run the economy in a centralized way, thus overcoming the marketplace. As well, the productive forces must be developed far enough to eliminate the scarcity economy among the masses. And the class divisions in society have to be overcome in practice before the workers can dispense with the use of a revolutionary state machine. But the anarchists denounce the Marxists for worrying about transition periods, and say that this means the Marxists are just "state socialists" and "state capitalists". All you supposedly have to do is have the workers and peasants take over each workplace and farm by themselves, and then money and government can be abolished immediately. The experience of the Spanish Civil War shows that the anarchist plan could not abolish money and government.


Patriarchalism and small-scale production

. 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. But when the village communities were freed from the old national forms of money and when they achieved self-government as collectives, they not only hadn't been liberated from capitalism, they even still discriminated against women. We have glanced briefly above at the anarchist collective of Binéfor, which despite its supposed abolition of money still paid men more than women. This didn't happen simply in Binéfor, but in most of the collectives. And it isn't simply the slander of some bigoted opponent of anarchism, but was discussed by anarchist women themselves. One author points out, in discussing the situation in 1936-37, that
. "The anarchists had always declared the equality of all human beings, but, as the anarchist feminist organization, Mujeres Libres [Liberated Women], emphasized, relationships still remained 'feudal'. The most blatant way in which the anarchists had failed to live up to their professed ideals was the different levels of pay form men and women in most CNT enterprises. . . . Little headway was made outside the cities, though the greatest demonstration of the new equality was the number of militiawomen fighting in the front line."(9)

. The inequality between men and women existed in industrial collectives in Barcelona as well as in the Spanish countryside. But it was most resistant to change in the agrarian villages. And this patriarchal oppression of women isn't something particular to Spanish agrarian collectives. As far as the countryside goes, it is typical of independent agrarian collectives engaging in small-scale production. It was seen in the Russian mir a century ago and in a number of Mexican ejidos in this century. The agrarian village community, if it is a self-contained entity, is not the harbinger of a new society, but tends to suffer from all the ills of small-scale production. This is true even if its members own the land in common, have various joint responsibilities, and decide their local community affairs democratically. In the Bolshevik Revolution, the communists, before their party degenerated into Stalinist revisionism, took seriously the issue of working for the equality of working women with working men. This required not simply liberating the village community from the old tsarist oppression, but tying the village community into a broader social context. It required the workers systematically seeking to influence the countryside, and it required bringing the benefits of large-scale production to the village. Among the methods of influence was mobilizing the local population around social measures promulgated throughout the country. The banner of the struggle was not autonomy, but class-wide effort.


Failure of the anarchist method of abolishing government

. The anarchist abolition of government didn't fare much better than their abolition of money. They believed that once they had established their self-governing communities in the villages and taken over the workplaces in the cities, government was abolished. That's not what happened.

. Take the villages. The anarchist version of the abolition of money resulted in the local village committee issuing coupons, running various social services (barber shop, apothecaries, etc.), determining the conditions of work, etc. This actually increased the role of the local committee. As one source points out, in the midst of praising the agrarian collectives: ". . . But the lives of those who joined were strictly controlled by the elected administrative commission that managed the collective, shared out the work, and paid the wages on a 'household' basis (single man, 5 pesetas; single woman, 4 pesetas; head of family, 5 pesetas; his wife, 2 pesetas, etc.)."(10)

. The power of the poor in these committees was undoubtedly a great improvement over having one's life dictated to by the rich. But anyone who thinks that a local committee -- because it's local -- is not exercising political power has never taken made a realistic study of self-governing communities and organizations.

. But to continue. What about the all-important supply of foodstuffs to the cities and the front lines of the fight against the fascist armies? It turns out that this wasn't simply left to the agrarian villages. Instead it was aided by the use of force, by anarchist militias. Above I have cited Miller saying that the agrarian collectives supplied the cities and the front, although they didn't equalize conditions among themselves. But what Miller left out, is the role of the anarchist militia columns in supplying the city and the front. Antony Beevor, who is favorable to the anarchist collectives, points out that "In Aragon some collectives were installed forcibly by anarchist militia columns, especially Durruti's. Their impatience to get the harvest in to feed the cities, as well as the fervor of their beliefs, sometimes led to violence."(11)

. This is not to say that the agrarian collectives didn't see the necessity of supplying the cities and the front. But to actually accomplish this supply, it took more than the goodwill of the collectives. Militia columns were used. And when it came to equalizing conditions between the agrarian collectives -- something far too delicate and intricate to be accomplished by roving militia columns -- very little was done. This puts a somewhat different picture on the "mutual aid" in the countryside.

. But what does it mean to use the militia columns? The armed forces are one of the key features of the state. And the militia columns were not under the command of the autonomous villages and were not the village community in arms, but were roving bands filled in large part with anarchists from the cities. So here we have the anarchists making use of one the chief tools of state power in order to collect grain from the collectives. Of course, the anarchists believed that since these were anarchist militias, and free of saluting and other features of the Spanish regular army, that they were no longer tools of state power. This was the same mistake they made when they assumed that local coupons were not money, because they were not the hated banknotes issued by the central government.

. As far as the Barcelona and Catalan governments went, the anarchists fared no better. At the outset of the Civil War, the anarchists were dominant in Barcelona, the main city of Catalonia, and could have dispersed the government of Catalonia, the so-called "Generalitat", which was in the hands of liberal bourgeois Catalan nationalists. The anarchists didn't do so, because it went against their anarchist ideology to form a government. They were content in July 1936 to form a Central Committee of the Anti-fascist Militias (also known as the Anti-fascist Militias Committee), to take over workplaces, and to create local committees. At a time when the Anti-fascist Militias Committee was pretty much the dominant force in Catalonia, the anarchists coexisted with the government. It seemed that the anarchist opposition to government was now interpreted as also being opposition to dispersing the government. The anarchist leader Ahad de Santillán later wrote:
. "We could have remained alone, imposed our absolute will, declared the Generalitat null and void, and imposed the true power of the people in its place, but we did not believe in dictatorship when it was exercised against us, and we did not want it when we could exercise it ourselves only at the expense of others. The Generalitat government would remain in force with President Companys at its head, and the popular forces would organize themselves into militias to carry on the struggle for the liberation of Spain. Thus was born the Catalonia Antifascist Militias Committee, . . "(12)

. By September 1936, the anarchists joined the Generalitat government of Catalonia, and in November joined the Republican government of Spain. Thus the anarchists first refused to form a government, as a violation of their anti-state and anti-authoritarian principles, and then joined both the provincial and national governments.

. Once again, the problem isn't that the anarchists couldn't achieve the impossible -- the immediate abolition of government. This failure discredits the anarchist theory, but it doesn't in itself fault the practical steps they took in developing what were in effect organs of revolutionary power. But these practical steps were deeply flawed by their inability to understand, due to their false theory, what type of political organization is needed by the revolutionary movement. They misinterpreted the use of militia columns and local committees as the abolition of government, when it was a step in the development of a sort of revolutionary government.


Errors of the Spanish anarchists, as admitted by the anarchist nationalists

. Now the BAC's Jackson himself admits that there were some errors made by the Spanish anarchists. Let's look at Jackson's analysis. He claims that the anarchist "main failure was on a military, and (partially) on an ideological level". He entirely ignores the economic problems facing the anarchists, as he prefer to live in a world of legends and wishful thinking on that front. But the errors he does list are of much interest. And although Jackson says there was something of an ideological basis for them, he stays as far away in practice from giving that basis. That is an error that we won't make.


First error--weakness in the fight against fascism

. First of all, Jackson tells us that the Spanish anarchists "didn't carry out a protracted fight against the fascist Falange with the attitude of driving them off the face of the planet." Now this is a shocking admission. The anarchists, the self-proclaimed greatest enemies of the state, didn't carry out enough of a fight against the fascist Falange, the representative of the worst type of repressive state. Unfortunately, Jackson doesn't tell us why this was so. Didn't the Spanish anarchists shout as loud as Jackson about the evils of the state and all authority? Yes, they did. And if they nevertheless couldn't put enough emphasis on the fight against the fascists, why should we believe that Seattle anarchists like Jackson can carry out a sufficiently protracted and fierce fight against the reactionaries here?

. Let's suggest a reason why the Spanish anarchists had trouble. The anarchist ideology -- take over your local workplace, and that's all that is needed -- gives rise to a localist outlook. Its disgust at centralism goes against the idea of organizing nation-wide (and even broader) struggles against the reactionary enemy. This requires a centralized struggle; and anarchists aren't any happier with political centralization than with economic centralization.

. One author, sympathetic to anarchists, nevertheless writes that:
"For example, the anarchists of Catalonia felt that to recapture Saragossa would be tantamount to winning the war. The advance of the Army of Africa(13) in the south-west [of Spain] could almost have been in a foreign country, as far as they were concerned."(14)

. Ironically, another writer in Black Autonomy put his finger in passing on one aspect of the issue. David Ashley wrote that "Splintered nations have always destroyed themselves with just the slightest push from the outside. . . The reason for this is that no matter the size of an organization it will defeat disorganization and in-fighting."(15) Organization will defeat disorganization, even if the organization is tiny compared to the huge disorganized mass -- that's a strange admission for an anarchist to make. But it gives a key to the difficulty that the Spanish anarchists had in the fight against the Falange. The Falange was organized, while the anarchists -- able to take over and run individual collectives, or even some regional committees -- nevertheless tended to disorganization.


Second error--lack of independence

. The second reason Jackson gives is that the Spanish anarchists "underestimated the treachery of their Marxist-Leninist 'allies' (and even some of their anarchist 'allies'), who later sided with the liberal government to destroy the anarchist collectives. Some CNT members even joined the government in the name of a 'united front against fascism'." Here we see that the anarchists to some extent trailed the Stalinists (the Spanish Communist Party was no longer Marxist-Leninist but had been overcome by Stalinist revisionism by the time of the Spanish Civil War). Moreover, while Jackson blames the Stalinists for the political errors of the anarchists, he admits that the anarchists themselves joined the government -- i.e. trailed the liberal bourgeois republicans.

. But why did the anarchists do this? Is it because the Spanish anarchists had a tradition of working with the communists and following them around? Far from it. The Spanish anarchists were just as hostile to either Marxist communism or Stalinism (fake communism), and just as hostile to the bourgeois politicians as Jackson. They shouted just as loud as Jackson, and they had been doing it for far longer than Jackson has been doing it. They had been trained in decades of abuse against politics as well as against Marxism. So it's hard to believe that they joined a government out of softness towards either Marxism or Stalinism.

. What happened is that the anarchists lacked any independent answers to the struggle against fascism. Without these independent answers, they could do nothing but splinter and follow other political forces, even those forces whom they had been denouncing for decades. When they saw that the autonomous collectives were getting into trouble, they had to turn to solutions proposed by other political forces, because they had no real answer for themselves. When they saw that the anarchist militias weren't sufficient for the military struggle, they had to turn to the plans for regularizing the army proposed by other political forces. When they saw that they couldn't simply abolish government in the midst of the crisis, they vacillated between letting the liberal bourgeois governments alone and joining them.

. It is to the credit of the Spanish anarchists that they recognized that some of their rhetoric had to be thrown aside. They couldn't be satisfied with the empty rhetoric that satisfies Jackson because they could see with their eyes that the anarchist plans were in trouble. But on the other hand, they had no idea of how to deal with the problems they saw. They ended up trailing other forces, while grumbling about this and that. It was a fiasco of the highest order.

. This isn't the first time that anarchism had proved bankrupt in Spain. Engels discussed a similar fiasco that overwhelmed the Spanish anarchists in the 19th century in his pamphlet "The Bakuninists at Work: An Account of the Spanish Revolt in the Summer of 1873". Here the Spanish anarchists were faced with the possible replacement of the monarchy with a democratic republic. According to the Bakuninist theory which they were following at the time, the anarchists shouldn't have cared about the political events unfolding. As Engels describes it, the Spanish anarchists "had been preaching for years that no part should be taken in a revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class, . . ." (This is still anarchist doctrine.) And yet, every Spanish worker knew that the working class must intervene in the crucial political events that were occurring.

. So what did the anarchists do in 1873? They ended up in part abstaining from taking any definite line in the struggle, and in part following the bourgeois republicans. Having preached against revolutionary government, the Bakuninists nevertheless joined in government "juntas" with the bourgeois republicans, generally without being able to influence their program. And militarily, Engels pointed out that their allergy towards centralism resulted in fragmentation of the revolutionary forces, so that the reactionaries could "conquer one city after another with a handful of soldiers, practically unresisted."

. The root cause of the anarchists trailing other forces in the Spanish Civil War was the failure of anarchist theory. It's what happened in 1873, and it happened again six decades later in the Spanish Civil War.


Third error--lack of international solidarity

. Jackson's third criticism of the Spanish anarchists is that they "hadn't spent enough time really developing their networks outside the country in the event they needed weapons, supplies, or a place to seek refuge quickly." Here again, Jackson doesn't suggest a reason why this happened. Yet here 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.


Eurocentrism and Morocco

. Finally, let's note another shortcoming of the Spanish anarchists that is related to their shortcomings in internationalism. Jackson is silent about this shortcoming, although it would seem to be related to the "Eurocentrism" that Jackson talks so much about. (Jackson accuses the "white left" of being Eurocentrist throughout his open letter.) It may seem strange that Jackson accuses the general left -- which debates the nature of regimes in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe -- of being Eurocentric, while he himself gives the experience of the struggle in a Western European country, Spain, as his main example of successful anarchism. This is another example of an anarchist having one idea in theory, but being forced to eat his words in practice. But far more significant is that Jackson fails to note the "Eurocentrism" of the Spanish anarchists.

. The issue here concerns Morocco, a part of North Africa. Morocco was at that time partitioned between Spain and France. During the Spanish Civil War, the fascists made use of a large number of Moroccan troops. If the Spanish working class was to defeat fascism, it was important to raise the Moroccans in revolt against their fascist Falangist commanders. In order to do this, it would have been necessary to proclaim Morocco's right to self-determination and to promise that, if the fascists were defeated, there would be an end to Spanish domination. This was never done. While the Republic's granting of autonomy to Catalonia and the Basque region had increased its support in those areas of European Spain, there was no serious attempt to win over the Moroccan masses in Africa.

. It looked as if the bourgeois republicans would rather lose to the fascists than see Morocco become independent. They were also frightened that recognizing Moroccan rights would alienate France and other imperialist powers. It was up to the working class to stand up for the national rights of the Moroccans. But the anarchists weren't that interested in this issue. In the literature discussing the views of the Spanish anarchists, it is hard to even find mention of the Moroccan problem. ( No doubt this too is part of the localist orientation of anarchism, as well as their opposition to all states.) But according to one source, "Prior to the Civil War, all the revolutionary parties had stood for the independence, or at least the full autonomy of Morocco." But only POUM (which was not anarchist) "came out publicly" for this during the war.(16).

. It's not that the Moroccan war had been a minor issue in Spain, which might be accidentally overlooked at a time of national crisis. A revolt of the Rif tribespeople of Morocco led by Abd el-Krim had lasted from 1919 to 1926. In 1921, they had crushed an entire Spanish army in a major battle, and for several years a large zone of Morocco was liberated. It took major forces from France as well as Spain to put down this uprising. And history would soon show how disastrous it is for the working class if "their" country wins an unjust war of oppression. The Spanish "Army of Africa" that suppressed the Moroccans(17) would be the core of the fascist forces that would suppress the Spanish toilers in the Civil War; among its generals were the spark plugs of the fascist rebellion, such as Mola, Goded, Queipo de Llano, Sanjurjo, and Franco himself(18); and the subjugation of Morocco had paved the way for the use of thousands of indigenous Moroccan troops against the Republic. As Marxism teaches, a nation that oppresses another forges the chains of its own slavery. French and Spanish communists had campaigned vigorously in support of the Rif rebellion while it was proceeding, and the Spanish communists had continued to support Moroccan independence until their Marxist-Leninist stand was replaced by Stalinist revisionism. In the mid-30's, the Stalinists abandoned the Moroccans as part of their wheelings and dealings with the liberal republicans. And the anarchists? They just didn't seem that concerned with the issue during the Civil War.

. And so the Spanish anarchists treated the Moroccans with indifference. And Greg Jackson -- the campaigner against Eurocentrism supposedly on behalf of the [non-European] masses -- overlooks the issue.

. But Jackson isn't that concerned with the real history of the struggle against national and colonial oppression. Since he is not just an anarchist, but a nationalist anarchist, his concern is to prove that unity is all but impossible between the black workers and other workers. So he pretends that communism and the workers' movement have never really opposed the oppression of the minorities and subject nationalities. In fact, the communist parties and movements, in their days as Marxist revolutionary movements, led masses of workers to raise the banners of the anti-colonial movement, the right to self-determination, the struggle against racial discrimination, and the unity of workers of all nationalities, races and backgrounds. The campaigns of communists in favor of freedom for the peoples oppressed by their "own" county, their "own" bourgeoisie, were consistent and spirited. This stand of the communists was spurred on by their Marxist theory, which encourages workers and activists to see their liberation as coming from a world-wide class struggle and not from fencing themselves off from the world in a supposedly autonomous collective. Besides the campaigns of the communists in favor of the revolt of the Rif tribes, mention could also be made of the communist stand against apartheid in South Africa, against racial discrimination in the U.S., against the colonial empires of the imperial powers, etc.

[Cult of Reason]

Modern post-industrial society is very complex. Producing computers or fighter jets would not be possible in small workshops.

Yes, that is obvious, but I fail to see how that is at all relevant to Anarchism. Or are you, perhaps, suggesting that it is a point in Anarchist ideology to scrap all large, central factories, mines, shipyards and power stations? If so, then that would be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a Leninist say. :lol:

Collectivisation is in fact a trend opposite to that you are implying would happen under Anarchism. The merging of farm plots into larger, more efficient ones for collective cultivation is, if anything, a centralising act. It is not always beneficial to do such a thing, but it is a technical decision unaffected by questions of ideology. What matters is how these fields, large or small, are organised. The same applies to manufacturing, though that cases is somewhat more complex.


For example, one Anarchist observer reported that "Notwithstanding lavish expenditures of money on this need, our industrial organization was not able to finish a single kind of rifle or machine gun or cannon".
(Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Revolution, (1970))

This is ignoring the circumstance completely, and is rather vague in itself in any case. The revolution was on July 19th. After the May Days, it was effectively over. I have never heard of any Spanish firearms companies, which does not induce me to believe that there was any significant firearms producing infrastructure, or any at all. Also, it would probably have been more efficient, in the short term at least, to buy arms than to produce them yourself in that situation. Thirdly, it is difficult enough organising less exotic production in a situation where the state is not yet destroyed and where there is a war on. They did, however, manufacture ammunition, if not any new weapons, and armoured cars.

[Bilan]

Engels pointed out industry would be much less productive under anarchism than under socialism or capitalism. Likely anarchists would have little success producing anything of value. Drastic reductions in industrial production would lead to collapse in living standard, starvation and death in the world.

Tip for Marxists: Stop using 100 year old texts, when anarchism was relatively new, or when out spoken anarchists, such as Kropotkin, were not communicating with the Marx and Engels - you sound like douches. Same goes for Lenin. He was wrong about anarchism, deal with it.

In any case, anarchism does not call for "drastic reductions industrial production". That is an absolute myth.



Various anarchist theoreticians have disputed Engels's conclusions but in the real world anarchism has always failed when it has been tried.


Funny that. Noting that, don't use Engels as an example.



One sad example is Anarchist Catalonia. The anarchists were unable to effectively organize industrial production there which was a major cause of the loss in the war.


Nothing is more tragic than a socialist trying to capitalize on an anarchist wrong doing without taking context into account.
Thats all that is "sad" here.

The anarchists could've done a much better job at organizing industry during the Spanish revolution, but incidentally, due to the Civil War, the collaboration with traitors such as the Socialists and "Communists", the formation of the government, the need to push the struggle forward and to push the fascists out of Aragon and Saragossa, pin points of industry in Spain, would be largely to blame for that.

Under the conditions, the anarchists did an amazing job, and at least, meant it when they spoke of revolution.
The Socialists on the other hand...well, supporting the bourgeois republic is enough said, now isn't it?

[Unicorn]

Yes, that is obvious, but I fail to see how that is at all relevant to Anarchism. Or are you, perhaps, suggesting that it is a point in Anarchist ideology to scrap all large, central factories, mines, shipyards and power stations? If so, then that would be one of the stupidest things I have EVER heard a Leninist say. :lol:
I know that only the primitivist anarchists want to abolish industry. The problem is that the anarchists could not manage the economy effectively. Nobody would have capital to found new factories and the They cannot produce needed goods because there is no central planning. Small communes are not self-sufficient.

In Soviet Russia equality between men and women was ensured by the state. However, in anarchist communes in Spain social inequality was commonplace.

Quoting the article I posted:

"The anarchists had always declared the equality of all human beings, but, as the anarchist feminist organization, Mujeres Libres [Liberated Women], emphasized, relationships still remained 'feudal'. The most blatant way in which the anarchists had failed to live up to their professed ideals was the different levels of pay form men and women in most CNT enterprises. . . . Little headway was made outside the cities, though the greatest demonstration of the new equality was the number of militiawomen fighting in the front line."

There would also be much economic inequality in an anarchist society. In Spain some communes produced much while others fell to poverty. The relatively wealthy communes were under no obligation to help the poor (or the Republican army) and thus inequality and defeat ensued.

[Bilan]

I know that only the primitivist anarchists want to abolish industry. The problem is that the anarchists could not manage the economy effectively. Nobody would have capital to found new factories and the They cannot produce needed goods because there is no central planning. Small communes are not self-sufficient.

Anarchism =/= small communes.
Unicorn, please, do some damn research on anarchist politics, and stop talking nonsense.



In Soviet Russia equality between men and women was ensured by the state. However, in anarchist communes in Spain social inequality was commonplace.

Oh fuck off. It was equal only in the sense that everyone suffered under the iron thumb of the Bolshevik beauracracy. Don't get all high and mighty about it.

And the situation in Spain was vastly different from that of Russia: don't try and bring a conclusion when you're completely ignoring the material conditions.
Yeah, Russia was economically backward, this is true. Spain did have larger Industrial pockets than Russia, also true.
But fascists had strongholds on alot of the Industrial centres (e.g. Saragossa and Aragon, as I mentioned before).

Furthermore, to add to that, they were fighting a Civil War, in which leadership had been usurped by betraying motherfuckers like Cabellero and Negri, as well as various other Socialist and Communist bureaucrats and traitors to the people. The war being bother against fascism and for Libertarian communism had been robbed of its revolutionary character by those who'd usurped power, as well by the influence of the Russian bureaucracy on the leadership (With the exception of a few prominent anarchists. Durruti, for example).

This was not the same in Russia, now was it?
Of course it wasn't. So don't even try that shit!



"The anarchists had always declared the equality of all human beings, but, as the anarchist feminist organization, Mujeres Libres [Liberated Women], emphasized, relationships still remained 'feudal'. The most blatant way in which the anarchists had failed to live up to their professed ideals was the different levels of pay form men and women in most CNT enterprises. . . . Little headway was made outside the cities, though the greatest demonstration of the new equality was the number of militiawomen fighting in the front line."

And the Mujer Libres were exactly right.
That doesn't make the anarchists 'wrong', it means the revolution still had struggles ahead of it.
Don't be daft.



There would also be much economic inequality in an anarchist society. In Spain some communes produced much while others fell to poverty. The relatively wealthy communes were under no obligation to help the poor (or the Republican army) and thus inequality and defeat ensued.

Anarchism is not isolated communes which ignore each other, and stand idly while others suffer. That's absurd.

Ever heard of Kropotkins, "Mutual aid". Famous anarchist text. Have a gander...and while you're at it, check out Malatesta, the rest of Kropotkins works, and a few other anarchist texts. :)

[YSR]

"The anarchists had always declared the equality of all human beings, but, as the anarchist feminist organization, Mujeres Libres [Liberated Women], emphasized, relationships still remained 'feudal'. The most blatant way in which the anarchists had failed to live up to their professed ideals was the different levels of pay form men and women in most CNT enterprises. . . . Little headway was made outside the cities, though the greatest demonstration of the new equality was the number of militiawomen fighting in the front line."

Gee, Batman, you mean the revolution isn't a single apocalyptic event where everything changes and the new situation is completely different from the old one? You mean that revolution is a process, a series of accumulating moments that reflect and swell, a never-ending development constantly aiming towards a better society?

Well, that certainly would be correct!

[bcbm]

Engels pointed out industry would be much less productive under anarchism than under socialism or capitalism.

Well that settles it, I'm not an anarchist any more. If we cannot keep up the production of mountains of useless crap, what's the point?

[ComradeOm]

If we cannot keep up the production of mountains of useless crap, what's the point?Then there isn't one. Regardless of what Engels wrote, the suggestion that the productive forces of society would decrease under anarchism/socialism/communism is extremely serious. What is, after all, the point of a social transformation that leaves people worse off than before?

[Bilan]

Then there isn't one. Regardless of what Engels wrote, the suggestion that the productive forces of society would decrease under anarchism/socialism/communism is extremely serious. What is, after all, the point of a social transformation that leaves people worse off than before?

You tell us. We still have Stalinists and the like walking about here!

But never the less, where does it say that?
I've never read that anywhere but in an ecoanarchist text.
And even so, are you sure they're not implying manual labor decreases, in favor of machine-based labor?
In any case, who are you quoting when stating that?

[bcbm]

Then there isn't one. Regardless of what Engels wrote, the suggestion that the productive forces of society would decrease under anarchism/socialism/communism is extremely serious. What is, after all, the point of a social transformation that leaves people worse off than before?

Well if we consider that a large amount of society's productive forces are, today, geared towards things that will be essentially worthless in a communist society, I don't think a decrease in that force is all that serious. There will have to be a massive reorganization no matter what, and I see no reason why the end result wouldn't be better for everyone.

[Unicorn]

Gee, Batman, you mean the revolution isn't a single apocalyptic event where everything changes and the new situation is completely different from the old one? You mean that revolution is a process, a series of accumulating moments that reflect and swell, a never-ending development constantly aiming towards a better society?

Well, that certainly would be correct!
The point is that under socialism social progress is more rapid than under anarchism. Also capitalist societies are capable of some positive social progress (like universal suffrage) but that does not change the fact that socialism is the most efficient, humane form of government.

[ComradeOm]

In any case, who are you quoting when stating that?Um... Marx. The entire concept of a communist society* is based on the assumption that the productive forces of society will greatly multiply after the collapse of capitalism. So yeah, its pretty fundamental

*In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!


Well if we consider that a large amount of society's productive forces are, today, geared towards things that will be essentially worthless in a communist society, I don't think a decrease in that force is all that seriousThere will be a change in consumption habits, naturally, but there's no reason why our choices of deodorant will suddenly be limited to either "Red Guard" or "Lynx: Dear Leader". Living standards, however much you may scorn frivolous spending, cannot be expected to drop... in the long term at least

Now imagine the stunning increase in resources required to not only maintain these living standards in the face of collapsing imperialist mechanisms, but to actually achieve a society where "to each according to his needs" is reality. That's not possibly feasible - even with a command economy producing just two or three types of shoes - without the economic transformation that accompanies political and social revolutions


There will have to be a massive reorganization no matter what, and I see no reason why the end result wouldn't be better for everyone.Which is the whole point really. The social revolution is both the product of increasing productive forces (arriving at a point where capitalism is no longer able to effectively harness them) and the key to unlocking a vast increase in them. Should this not occur... well how can you possibly expect to see the emergence of a communist society?

[bcbm]

There will be a change in consumption habits, naturally, but there's no reason why our choices of deodorant will suddenly be limited to either "Red Guard" or "Lynx: Dear Leader". Living standards, however much you may scorn frivolous spending, cannot be expected to drop... in the long term at least

And I'm not suggesting they should, or that anything should be "limited," merely that many items produced under capitalism will probably no longer be needed under communism, allowing production to be focused more directly on what society needs and wants.

[Vanguard1917]

Then there isn't one. Regardless of what Engels wrote, the suggestion that the productive forces of society would decrease under anarchism/socialism/communism is extremely serious. What is, after all, the point of a social transformation that leaves people worse off than before?

Good point. And good of you to emphasise the Marxist position in your previous post. Many on this site seem completely oblivious to it.

From the Marxist perspective, the number one reason that capitalism needs to be overcome is because it stands in the way of the development of the productive forces of society. Capitalist relations of production are a fetter on the further advancement of our productive capabilities.

The idea that capitalism is 'bad' because it gives way to too much material progress - an idea which is rife in fashionable middle class 'anti-capitalist' circles - is utterly antithetical to Marxism.

[Bilan]

Um... Marx. The entire concept of a communist society* is based on the assumption that the productive forces of society will greatly multiply after the collapse of capitalism. So yeah, its pretty fundamental

No, doofus, I meant who were you quoting when you said that anarchists want to reduce the amount of production.

[Unicorn]

[/B]No, doofus, I meant who were you quoting when you said that anarchists want to reduce the amount of production.
I don't doubt the good intentions of many anarchists and their sincere wish to increase production and create a classless society. However, because the anarchist economic system is so flawed production would actually decrease under their rule for reasons I have explained here and in this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarchists-send-t74314/index.html

[Marsella]

I am a Communist, but Engels discussion on 'authority' is one big fat strawman. Either Engels didn't know what he was talking about, arguing completley on the absurd literal grounds of authority, or he did know yet completley misrepresented anarchist thought.


Didn't Engels refute anarchism in his essay "On Authority"?

No, far from it. Engels (in)famous essay "On Authority" is often pointed to by Marxists of various schools as refuting anarchism. Indeed, it is often considered the essential Marxist work for this and is often trotted out (pun intended) when anarchist influence is on the rise. However this is not the case. In fact, his essay is both politically flawed and misrepresentative of his foes opinions. As such, anarchists do not think that Engels refuted anarchism in his essay. Indeed, rather than refute anarchism, Engels' essay just shows his ignorance of the ideas he was critiquing. This ignorance essentially rests on the fact that the whole concept of authority was defined and understood differently by Bakunin and Engels meant that the latter's critique was flawed. While Engels may have thought that they both were speaking of the same thing, in fact they were not.

For Engels, all forms of group activity meant the subjection of the individuals that make it up. As he puts it, "whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation" and so it is not possible "to have organisation without authority," as authority means "the imposition of the will of another upon ours . . . authority presupposes subordination." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 731 and p. 730] As such, he considers the ideas of Bakunin to fly in the face of common sense and so show that he does not know what he is talking about. However, it is Engels who shows that he does not know what he is talking about.
The first fallacy in Engels account is that anarchists do not oppose all forms of authority. Bakunin was extremely clear on this issue and differentiated between types of authority, of which only certain kinds did he oppose. For example, he asked the question "[d]oes it follow that I reject all authority?" and answered quite clearly: "No, far be it from me to entertain such a thought."

He acknowledged the difference between being an authority -- an expert -- and being in authhority, for example. This meant that "f I bow before the authority of the specialists and declare myself ready to follow, to a certain extent and so long as it may seem to me to be necessary, their general indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one . . . I bow before the authority of specialists because it is imposed upon me by my own reason." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 253]
Similarly, he argued that anarchists "recognise all natural authority, and all influence of fact upon us, but none of right; for all authority and all influence of right, officially imposed upon us, immediately becomes a falsehood and an oppression." He stressed that the "only great and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one we respect, will be that of the collective and public spirit of a society founded on equality and solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members." [Op. Cit., p. 241 and p. 255]

So while Bakunin and other anarchists, on occasion, did argue that anarchists reject "all authority" they, as Carole Pateman correctly notes, "tended to treat 'authority' as a synonym for 'authoritarian,' and so have identified 'authority' with hierarchical power structures, especially those of the state. Nevertheless, their practical proposals and some of their theoretical discussions present a different picture." [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 141] This can be seen when Bakunin noted that "the principle of authority" was the "eminently theological, metaphysical and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must submit at all times to the benevolent yoke of a wisdom and a justice, which in one way or another, is imposed from above." [Marxism, Freedom and the State, p. 33] Clearly, by the term "principle of authority" Bakunin meant hierarchy rather than organisation and the need to make agreements (what is now called self-management).

Therefore Bakunin did not oppose all authority but rather a specific kind of authority, namely hierarchical authority. This kind of authority placed power into the hands of a few. For example, wage labour produced this kind of authority, with a "meeting . . . between master and slave . . . the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187] The state is also based hierarchical authority, with "those who govern" (i.e. "those who frame the laws of the country as well as those who exercise the executive power") are in an "exceptional position diametrically opposed to . . . popular aspirations" towards liberty. They end up "viewing society from the high position in which they find themselves" and so "[w]hoever says political power says domination" over "a more or less considerable section of the population." [Op. Cit., p. 218]

Thus hierarchical authority is top-down, centralised and imposed. It is this kind of authority Bakunin had in mind when he argued that anarchists "are in fact enemies of all authority" and it will "corrupt those who exercise [it] as much as those who are compelled to submit to [it]." [Op. Cit., p. 249] In other words, "authority" was used as shorthand for "hierarchy" (or "hierarchical authority"), the imposition of decisions rather than agreement to abide by the collective decisions you make with others when you freely associate with them. In place of this kind of authority, Bakunin proposed a "natural authority" based on the masses "governing themselves." He did not object to the need for individuals associating themselves into groups and managing their own affairs, rather he opposed the idea that co-operation necessitated hierarchy:
[I] "Hence there results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of division and association of labour. I take and I give -- such is human life. Each is an authoritative leader and in turn is led by others. Accordingly there is no fixed and constant authority, but continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." [Op. Cit., pp. 353-4] This kind of free association would be the expression of liberty rather than (as in hierarchical structures) its denial. Anarchists reject the idea of giving a minority (a government) the power to make our decisions for us. Rather, power should rest in the hands of all, not concentrated in the hands of a few. Anarchism is based on rejecting what Bakunin called "the authoritarian conception of discipline" which "always signifies despotism on the one hand and blind automatic submission to authority on the other." In an anarchist organisation "hierarchic order and advancement do not exist" and there would be "voluntary and thoughtful discipline" for "collective work or action." This would be a new kind of discipline, one which is "voluntary and intelligently understood" and "necessary whenever a greater number of individuals undertake any kind of collective work or action." This is "simply the voluntary and considered co-ordination of all individual efforts for a common purpose . . In such a system, power, properly speaking, no longer exists. Power is diffused to the collectivity and becomes the true expression of the liberty of everyone, the faithful and sincere realisation of the will of all . . . this is the only true discipline, the discipline necessary for the organisation of freedom." [Op. Cit., pp. 259-60]

Clearly Engels misunderstands the anarchist conception of liberty. Rather than seeing it as essentially negative, anarchists argue that liberty is expressed in two different, but integrated, ways. Firstly, there is rebellion, the expression of autonomy in the face of authority. This is the negative aspect of it. Secondly, there is association, the expression of autonomy by working with equals. This is the positive aspect of it.

As such, Engels concentrates on the negative aspect of anarchist ideas, ignoring the positive, and so paints a false picture of anarchism. Freedom, as Bakunin argued, is a product of connection, not of isolation. How a group organises itself determines whether it is authoritarian or libertarian. If the individuals who take part in a group manage the affairs of that group (including what kinds of decisions can be delegated) then that group is based on liberty. If that power is left to a few individuals (whether elected or not) then that group is structured in an authoritarian manner. This can be seen from Bakunin's argument that power must be "diffused" into the collective in an anarchist society.

Clearly, anarchists do not reject the need for organisation nor the need to make and abide by collective decisions. Rather, the question is how these decisions are to be made -- are they to be made from below, by those affected by them, or from above, imposed by a few people in authority.

Only a sophist would confuse hierarchical power with the power of people managing their own affairs. It is an improper use of words to denote equally as "authority" two such opposed concepts as individuals subjected to the autocratic power of a boss and the voluntary co-operation of conscious individuals working together as equals. The lifeless obedience of a governed mass cannot be compared to the organised co-operation of free individuals, yet this is what Engels does. The former is marked by hierarchical power and the turning of the subjected into automations performing mechanical movements without will and thought. The latter is marked by participation, discussion and agreement. Both are, of course, based on co-operation but to argue that latter restricts liberty as much as the former simply confuses co-operation with coercion. It also indicates a distinctly liberal conception of liberty, seeing it restricted by association with others rather than seeing association as an expression of liberty. As Malatesta argued:
"The basic error . . . is in believing that organisation is not possible without authority. "Now, it seems to us that organisation, that is to say, association for a specific purpose and with the structure and means required to attain it, is a necessary aspect of social life. A man in isolation cannot even live the life of a beast . . . Having therefore to join with other humans . . . he must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity." [Life and Ideas, pp. 84-5]
Therefore, organisation is "only the practice of co-operation and solidarity" and is a "natural and necessary condition of social life." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 83] Clearly, the question is not whether we organise, but how do we do so. This means that, for anarchists, Engels confused vastly different concepts: "Co-ordination is dutifully confused with command, organisation with hierarchy, agreement with domination -- indeed, 'imperious' domination." [Murray Bookchin, Towards an Ecological Society, pp. 126-7]

Socialism will only exist when the discipline currently enforced by the stick in the hand of the boss is replaced by the conscious self-discipline of free individuals. It is not by changing who holds the stick (from a capitalist to a "socialist" boss) that socialism will be created. It is only by the breaking up and uprooting of this slavish spirit of discipline, and its replacement by self-management, that working people will create a new discipline what will be the basis of socialism (the voluntary self-discipline Bakunin talked about).

Clearly, then, Engels did not refute anarchism by his essay. Rather, he refuted a straw man of his own creation. The question was never one of whether certain tasks need co-operation, co-ordination, joint activity and agreement. It was, in fact, a question of how that is achieved. As such, Engels diatribe misses the point. Instead of addressing the actual politics of anarchism or their actual use of the word "authority," he rather addresses a series of logical deductions he draws from a false assumption regarding those politics. Engels essay shows the bedlam that can be created when a remorseless logician deduces away from an incorrect starting assumption.

For collective activity anarchists recognise the need to make and stick by agreements. Collective activity of course needs collective decision making and organisation. In so far as Engels had a point to his diatribe (namely that group efforts meant co-operating with others), Bakunin (like any anarchist) would have agreed. The question was how are these decisions to be made, not whether they should be or not. Ultimately, Engels confused agreement with hierarchy. Anarchists do not.

[Bilan]

I don't doubt the good intentions of many anarchists and their sincere wish to increase production and create a classless society. However, because the anarchist economic system is so flawed production would actually decrease under their rule for reasons I have explained here and in this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anarchists-send-t74314/index.html

That's fine and dandy (It's not rerally, I'll respond to your other thread in a second), but I asked who you quoted when you said anarchists want to decrease production, etc.
You've come up with no one, and proved your statement is baseless.

[Unicorn]

That's fine and dandy (It's not rerally, I'll respond to your other thread in a second), but I asked who you quoted when you said anarchists want to decrease production, etc.
You've come up with no one, and proved your statement is baseless.
Strawman. I haven't said that (all) anarchists want to decrease production though obviously some of them do.

[Bilan]

Strawman. I haven't said that (all) anarchists want to decrease production though obviously some of them do.

It's not a strawman at all.
The fact is you claimed it was a position of anarchists: you made that up.
See here:


Likely anarchists would have little success producing anything of value. Drastic reductions in industrial production would lead to collapse in living standard, starvation and death in the world.

And so what if some do?
They're about as common as the Marxists who uphold Hoxha?

The fact is you are trying to debunk anarchism on a principle not inherent in anarchist politics, and like Engels, failing.

[Unicorn]

It's not a strawman at all.
The fact is you claimed it was a position of anarchists: you made that up.
See here:
You still misrepresent my position. I know that at least some anarchists do want to increase industrial production. My argument is that the anarchists won't have success in organizing industrial mass production. The anarchist economic system would actually be less efficient in producing needed goods and services than socialist or even capitalist system.



And so what if some do?
They're about as common as the Marxists who uphold Hoxha?

The fact is you are trying to debunk anarchism on a principle not inherent in anarchist politics, and like Engels, failing.
Ecoanarchism is a major anarchist current and I have seen that many anarchists on this board have a hostile attitude towards industry and technology. This matters because after the revolution these misguided eco-anarchists would not contribute productively to building the society.

[Bilan]

. I know that at least some anarchists do want to increase industrial production. My argument is that the anarchists won't have success in organizing industrial mass production.

Noting that, explain this then:


The anarchist economic system would actually be less efficient in producing needed goods and services than socialist or even capitalist system.




Ecoanarchism is a major anarchist current and I have seen that many anarchists on this board have a hostile attitude towards industry and technology.

I think you'll find that the majority of anarchists here are anarchist communists, and that you're once again, talking out of your arse.
But in any case, provide some quotes.



This matters because after the revolution these misguided eco-anarchists would not contribute productively to building the society.

Let me know how that goes. :)

[redwinged blackbird]

A slight tangent, before we can discuss methods of organizing large-scale industrial production along anarchist lines:

Is it really that difficult to envision a reduction in overall material production, side by side with an increase in the material standard of living of the majority of people? :confused:

Have any of you ever been in the financial district of a large city, or the government one for that matter, or toured a military base? The amount of human labor and human creativity that is dumped, year after year, into capitalism's "overhead" sectors -- banking, insurance, real estate, courts, law firms, lobbying, legislation, electoralism, taxation, policing, "defense," invasion, and occupation; not to mention the building, communication, and transportation infrastructure that supports these functions -- is truly massive. We don't want to eliminate all capacity for large-scale industrial decision-making and popular defense, just the 95% or so that is wasted on propping up a bloated, decaying profit system.

Communism (i.e., anarchism) means human-directed and human-determined production, which for most people will mean access to much more material wealth in the form of food, clothing, shelter, medicine, transportation, communication, sports, drugs, gadgets, wilderness conservation, etc, and most importantly, the free time to actually enjoy these things.

Eliminate the former, develop the latter -- but there is nothing in this that says the system's aggregate material throughput should necessarily increase, or, for that matter, necessarily decrease.

Capitalism stands in the way of human progress, yes. But human progress isn't a simple matter of "more stuff" (as some of you seem to imply) any more than it's one of "less stuff" (as puritan liberals, deep ecologists and primitivists want). It's better stuff, for more people -- and not at the expense of the next generation, because nothing undermines the notion of progress so much as screwing over our grandkids. We will continue to develop more efficient technology, sure, but with the multiple ends of both reducing labor time and making more stuff. As long as we have a limited resource base, we should probably give some value to the principle of décroissance (de-growth) in our planning at the largest scale, while never forgetting that we only value it in order to maximize the material utility on the scale of the human.

I'm surprised at the crude way some of you are talking about production, technology, and progress. Capitalism stymies progress precisely by replacing any and all questions of quality with questions of quantity. I'm not trying to excuse any hypothetical failures of anarchist industry, by the way -- I want efficient mass production too, not a giant network of useless "small communes" incapable of ever colluding to make cellphones or spaceships. But this conversation is never going to work unless we get off this simple-minded "less <---> more" track, stop yelling at each other about who betrayed who during a backwards civil war in a semiperipheral country seventy years ago, and start talking about how we plan to actually manage the world we intend to inherit.

[ComradeOm]

And I'm not suggesting they should, or that anything should be "limited," merely that many items produced under capitalism will probably no longer be needed under communism, allowing production to be focused more directly on what society needs and wants.Apologies then, I assumed that you were taking the common stance of stance of rejecting the need for consumer goods. But if you're not talking about these then what range of products do you suggest will no longer be needed under communism?


No, doofus, I meant who were you quoting when you said that anarchists want to reduce the amount of production. I never said that. I merely disagreed with black coffee's claim that an increase in society's productive forces is not necessary following revolution (ie that a simple redistribution of existing production would suffice)

Frankly I don't think the productive forces will decrease under anarchism because it doesn't make a difference (in this regard) whether the revolution marches under a black or red banner. Its the social transformation itself that is both the result of and catalyst for this explosion of productive forces

[Marsella]

Apologies then, I assumed that you were taking the common stance of stance of rejecting the need for consumer goods. But if you're not talking about these then what range of products do you suggest will no longer be needed under communism?

I would think that munitions production would cease or decrease somewhat dramatically.