💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › albert-meltzer-social-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:19:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Social Revolution Author: Albert Meltzer Date: May 1941 Language: en Topics: social revolution Source: Retrieved on 22nd September 2020 from https://libcom.org/library/social-revolution-genuine-brand Notes: First published in War Commentary Vol.2, no.7
In the last issue of War Commentary I endeavoured to analyse briefly all
these fake-revolutionary movements and to show that in reality all
reformists were working towards, not reform and certainly not democracy,
but towards dictatorship. “Reformism” is no longer synonymous with
“democracy”: on the contrary, it is the reformist movements everywhere
where they are permitted to exist which are endeavouring to shackle the
workers to the governmental war machine, very often in order that the
capitalist governments will not suppress them in order to do that job
themselves.
Let us now consider the case for the genuine brand of social revolution.
What the pre-requisites of a revolutionary movement today?
In the first place, it must be against the imperialist war. All sorts of
pseudo-scientific excuses are invented for defending different
imperialist regimes. In the socialist movement, there are those who
declare it to be of importance to “defend the Soviet Union” – the joint
cry of Stalinists and Trotskyists – and those who declare it to be of
imperative necessity to “defend democracy” – i.e. British-American
imperialism. None of these in reality can be said to be anti-imperialist
or opposed to this war whilst they agitate for the defence of empires,
dictatorships and the like.
The Stalinists are at least consistent in one thing, the defence of the
Soviet Union, which has been their one guiding light for years. In order
to defend Stalin’s dictatorship they will quite cheerfully ally
themselves with Churchill or with Hitler, according to Russia’s latest
friendship. From this point of view they need be considered as nothing
more than marionettes dancing on the strings of the Russian Foreign
Office. Their bitter opponents, the Trotskyists, have the same policy of
defending the same regime, only they adopt different tactics (on the
grounds that they are more effective), i.e., they advocate revolutionary
defeatism, as revolutionaries, but (significantly) not in the U.S.S.R.
whose workers they urge to rally to the defence of the state, but to
turn out the “inefficient” Stalin bureaucracy (adopting the same tactics
as the British social-democrats in their fake “struggle” against British
capitalism – only stopping short of asking Stalin to declare his war
aims). We do not see how anyone claiming to be a revolutionary can
assume the responsibility for the calling of the workers of the world to
the defence of the Russian dictatorship based on the State exploitation
of the worker. Those who, claiming to be revolutionary, call for the
support of British-American imperialism, do so on two grounds: (1) the
belief that the war can be transformed – with whom I dealt in my last
article – and, more particularly (2) the belief that democracy exists in
these empires (“it is not now a question of capitalism versus socialism
but of a democratic capitalism versus a dictatorial capitalism”), That
such a democracy does not exist in the slightest vestige in the colonial
empires is notorious. (and the case of these, admitted). Their belief is
that what is to be defended against European fascism is the free speech,
association and thought that exists in the metropolis. This,
unfortunately, is dwindling. It is not considered by them that Britain’s
turn to fascism will leave them as completely helpless as were their
fellow-social-democrats on the continent. In the event of a British
victory, they will be unable to influence events, and in the event of a
German victory, they will. be powerless to resist the introduction of
fascism from that quarter either. To do them credit, they admit that.
Quite cheerfully they declare that if Hitler wins, the world, apparently
must cease to live – which, though it is no doubt good as superficial
propaganda, is a little deficient insofar as a working-class policy in
peace and war, victory and defeat, democracy and dictatorship, is
concerned.
We Anarchists do not accept responsibility for the defence of any of the
governments. To us, the immediate working-class policy must be one of
self-defence against encroachment and infringement of liberty from
within whatever state, and the preparation for social revolution.
Since we understand by “social revolution” the complete expropriation of
the means of life by the working class, it is natural that we cannot
make the easy promises of the left-wing politicians about a better world
following the war; it is certainly impossible for it to be gained by
collaboration with the State.
What we do say is that a revolutionary situation may arise which the
revolutionary workers must do their best to exploit, and which they can
only exploit by being prepared for it. (By “exploit” is meant utilise
for the benefit of the workers themselves, and not for the benefit of
any power-hungry set of politicians. By “preparation” is meant
clarification of principles and practice.) If there is a sufficiently
vigorous body of workers in the places of work, agitating for the means
of self-reliance and direct action, any revolutionary situation that may
arise will be a potential social revolution of the genuine brand, that
alone will bring freedom in the true sense of the word.
The means and the principles we have often elaborated in these columns;
namely, the formation of committees of workers in their places of work,
in whatever uniform or beneath whatever flag they are forced to appear.
The spontaneous linking of these committees must be encouraged, into the
form of industrial unionism, and with the syndicalist programme of
direct workers’ control. Finally, control by each industrial union of
its industry, for the benefit of the community, and with the abolition
of the State machinery under whatever name it may adopt.
It is clear that the conflicting imperialist powers have made every
possible path towards civilisation and peace, other than that of
revolution against imperialism and power politics, quite impossible. It
is also quite clear that the conflict of imperialism offers all sorts of
revolutionary situations that may be utilised by conscious revolutionary
movements everywhere.
In many cases serious collision is bound to arise between popular
revolution and bourgeois-nationalism. Should the European “New Order”
collapse, there are no end of applicants for the cushy jobs that will be
going in the re-constituted Europe. All the crowned – and other – heads
of State will want their old jobs back, and the queues are already
forming in London and New York for the new governments of Germany and
Italy. (One can hardly blame some of our harassed politicians for
wanting to see the revival of the old German Confederation, with its
thirty-six or so sovereigns).
So far as the British Empire is concerned, bourgeois-nationalism will
prove a very real obstacle to social revolution in the colonies and in
India, although today it appears in a semi-progressive role of
anti-imperialism.
Bourgeois-nationalism, therefore, while it is useful today as an
anti-imperialist force in conquered Europe, Asia and Africa, must be
guarded against as a potential danger.
Most potent is the danger of new tyrannies arising from the ashes – the
anarchist message that the destruction of one state by revolution and
the reconstruction of another means death to the revolutionary
achievements is of vital importance in the world revolution.
The imminence of a revolutionary situation as the imperialist struggle
drags on is not to be disputed. It is not so certain that such a
struggle will be waged to a successful libertarian issue, unless the
revolutionary workers are clear as to the means of revolution. Success
for such revolutionary efforts anywhere are certain to spread like
wildfire amongst the millions of toilers in all parts of the world. The
time for the world revolutionary movement – and this term is once again
becoming synonymous with anarchism – to strike, against imperialist
world war and for its opposite, working-class revolution may not be in
the too-distant future.