💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › karl-blythe-insurrection-and-organization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:42:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Insurrection and Organization Author: Karl Blythe Date: May 20, 2008 Language: en Topics: insurrection, organization Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/8947
The following loosely-organized notes attempt to analyze the role of
insurrection in the class struggle, in relation to the problem of
revolutionary organization. In the course of that analysis, I have
attempted to identify the both the strengths and weakness of the
anarchist movement while pointing out the different aspects of our
revolutionary task, with regard to specific anarchist organization as
well as different forms of popular organization. The theme running
through both questions of organization and insurrection is a notion of
popular power at the root of anarchist ideas. My hope is that these
notes may help to clarify and re-examine old anarchist themes of
organization and struggle, providing an analytical framework for
organized practice and perhaps a foundation for a long-term
revolutionary program.
Historically speaking, anarchism is rooted in popular and proletarian
insurrectional movements that came to a head in the French Revolution.
It was in the context of the struggle against feudalism—the struggle of
both the peasants and the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy—that a few
advanced proletarians, grasping the real significance of the Revolution,
organized the popular movement that overthrew the monarchy, incited the
people to class war against the bourgeoisie, and called for a system of
free communism, meanwhile being dubbed “anarchists../../” by their
opponents.[1] That name was taken up and proudly worn by later
revolutionists, recognizing in it the essence of their revolutionary
ideals.
In the century following the French Revolution, that ideal was
elaborated and systematized, first by Proudhon, then more fully by
Bakunin, Kropotkin, and numerous others of note (and many not so well
known). Most of these anarchists (notably Malatesta, as part of a long
Italian tradition), following in their predecessors’ footsteps, adopted
an insurrectionist approach, organizing and inciting the popular masses
to attack the old regime and pursue the revolution to its utmost
conclusion. (That idea was also espoused by Marx and Engels—it is summed
up quite well by the slogan “revolution in permanence,../../” later
appropriated by Trotsky.) It was these same anarchists (Bakunin first
and foremost), recognizing the need to adapt their methods to the real
conditions of the class struggle, who laid the practical basis for
revolutionary syndicalism.[2] Thus the 19^(th) century anarchist
movement mirrors the course of the proletarian class struggle, by and
large marking its own modes of action, its defeats and its successes
beside those of the working class.
It is in the aftermath of the Paris Commune and the demise of the First
International that we trace the beginnings of the organizational
controversy among the anarchists, with regard to the movement’s strategy
and tactics. The main current for a time favored the insurrectionist
method of “propaganda by deed../../” as most suitable for anarchists.
Regarding this particular occurrence, José Antonio Gutiérrez explains it
well as part of a larger phenomenon within revolutionary circles:
When the popular movement is on a low level of struggle, there’s usually
a growing feeling of isolation of the revolutionary movement from the
masses; this leads often to a loss in the confidence in the mass
organisations of the people and, actually, on the people themselves….
Also, the moments of a low level of popular struggle generally happen
after high levels of class confrontation, so the militants still have
lingering memories of the “barricade days../../”. These moments are
frozen in the minds of the militants and it is often that they try to
capture them again … by carrying on actions in order to “awaken the
masses../../”….[3]
In fact, these tactics only isolated the movement while alienating most
of the workers. It was as a reaction to the resulting decline of the
anarchist movement that anarcho-syndicalism appeared in its full
expression, looking to the First International as its historical
precedent and adopting the general strike as its preferred mode of
action.
In reviving anarchism’s heritage of working-class organization, the
syndicalists made one crucial departure from Bakunin’s program: they
rejected a specifically anarchist organization, believing that
syndicalism was “sufficient unto itself.../../”[4] The results are well
known: it put anarchism back on the scene as credible force, but failed
in every instance to achieve its revolutionary purpose. Rather,
“revolutionary../../” syndicalism proved to be little more than a kind
of militant reformism. The reasons for this are complex and
controversial, but clearly it is by no means sufficient unto itself.
Much of that idea can be traced to a certain dose of historical
determinism, in contrast to the protagonist subjectivism usually
espoused by anarchists (including insurrectionists, both in the broad
sense, as in “propaganda by deed,../../” and in the specific theoretical
sense, as in Bonanno or Hakim Bey).
On the other hand, the method of syndicalism can be traced to the same
basic problem as insurrectionism, except that it occurs at a later
phase. That is to say, after a period of low intensity in the class
struggle along with high levels of exploitation and repression, labor
union activity becomes a focal point for militant organizing within the
working class. At such moments, the struggle begins to intensify again
as the workers take the offensive, and syndicalism functions as a
central avenue of social insertion for revolutionaries. However, once
the workers achieve their immediate goals, they lose their spirit of
militancy and leave union leadership in the hands of a few officials
more interested in negotiation and compromise than in working-class
militancy. (This pattern even appears during the Spanish Revolution with
the CNT-FAI—and that at a moment when the class struggle was at its
highest ebb.)
Thus, each in their own way, insurrectionism and syndicalism reflect and
represent the most important strengths and weaknesses of revolutionary
anarchism. The former in many gets to the heart of anarchist ideas—it
constantly attacks authority and calls the masses to revolt. The latter,
on the other hand, connects the revolutionary struggle with the masses,
bringing to the movement an effective means of mass organization. Both
carry on the anarchist spirit of militancy and direct action, and indeed
in some respects their tactics overlap (e.g. wildcat strikes, sit-downs,
etc.). However, insurrectionism lacks a proper sense of long-term
preparation and coordination (the whole purpose of revolutionary
organization), instead focusing on isolated acts of resistance in
anticipation of a “spontaneous../../” uprising, while syndicalism on its
own invariably winds up in the route as parliamentary reform, stopping
short at immediate improvements and lacking the social impetus to step
up the struggle. From this it seems that anarchism’s unresolved problem
is how to bring together an effective organizational practice and a
revolutionary program to overthrow the ruling classes and the state,
serving as a catalyst for the social upheaval by the working class.
Let us be straightforward. To move ahead we must be clear about our
purpose, and unfortunately it has become standard practice to always
talk in terms of minimal programs said to be more specific and thus more
relatable to the masses. The result is that our movement, insofar as its
presence is felt at all, gets trapped in the programmatic framework of
the conventional Left, and the measure of victory is set, so to speak,
at the “lowest common denominator../../” rather than by our higher
objectives. This practice is usually defended as necessary to connect
with the larger social movement, and any attempt to guide that movement
in a different direction is denounced as “vanguardism../../” on a par
with Leninism. Breaking with this practice, we must take it upon
ourselves to set our fundamental goals and our approach toward achieving
them. Only in that way does our program make sense and our organization
take on some purpose in the eyes of the masses (whether or not they
agree with us is a different issue).
Our program, like our ideology, is two-fold. The social ideals that
guide us are in and of themselves creative. Our program therefore
naturally involves a constructive aspect that is summed up by the notion
of libertarian communism. As an immediate reflection of that we must set
about a constructive project to lay the social basis today for the free
society. On the other hand, our ideals are but an expression of the
historic struggle by the popular masses (the proletariat, in particular)
against the ruling classes (the capitalists) and their instruments of
power (the state). That is why our ideology is, and has always been,
revolutionary in the most complete sense. Therefore, our organizational
program must be a program of struggle against the state and ruling
classes. In short our fundamental purpose is the complete overthrow of
the ruling classes and the state, and the expropriation of social wealth
by the working classes (i.e. the proletariat). Put another way (perhaps
slightly complete), we aim to subjugate authority to popular power by
means of insurrection.
Now, that will not all occur on some climactic “great day.../../”
Rather, it entails a long process of organizing and constructing a
concrete basis of popular power, together with an intensifying struggle
originating in the immediate demands of the popular masses and growing
to the point of a revolutionary social upheaval. To fulfill that task,
we must devise and stick to a revolutionary program entailing both our
higher objectives and our “medium-term../../” strategy, to be adapted as
necessary but always consistent in its fundamental principles. That
means we cannot minimize or reduce our program to a mere list of
immediate demands. At the same time, it cannot mean unduly separating
ourselves from the masses (the basic error of insurrectionism). In that
sense, José Gutiérrez is correct in criticizing the common anarchist
trend of “making general rules out of exceptional circumstances../../”
(see note 3). It is crucial at this moment when the class struggle is
barely picking up again in much of the world, that we adopt an organized
practice that is consistent with our revolutionary principles but is
also capable of winning over the masses.
How, then, are we to build a popular base and push forward in the class
struggle? That is, how are we to take the offensive when as yet we lack
the wherewithal to instigate a social upheaval? It is not enough talk
about our being in the vanguard, or of social insertion into the popular
struggle, when clearly that is nothing but an intent and not a method
per se. I therefore turn to another piece by José Antonio Gutiérrez, on
“The problems posed by the concrete class struggle and popular
organisation,../../” where he highlights two aspects of this question:
the “actors of struggle../../” and the “levels of organization.../../” I
would highly suggest to the reader that they see this article for
themselves, as it is contains some valuable insights, but for the moment
I will briefly review its content.
Concerning the “actors of struggle,../../” I would say that Gutiérrez
hits the mark perfectly, showing a clear grasp of the subjective
factors. That is enough for now and requires no further elaboration.
With regard to organization, he writes:
The levels of the organisation are determined by the merging of both a
programme of action and the social nature of the actors…. To go any
further, let us first agree on an unavoidable dilemma of every
revolutionary movement … that only the unity of the working class can
overthrow the ruling class and … that the working class is not a
homogeneous block — there are different levels of awareness and class
consciousness, there are different ideas, opinions, tendencies, some
being more inclined to a libertarian pole, and others more towards an
authoritarian pole.[5]
Finely put, and it is with that understanding that I will analyze the
problem. Gutiérrez outlines three levels: the “social level../../”
(broad-based popular organizations representing the “social
actors../../” respectively), the “social political level../../”
(narrower political tendencies within those organizations, libertarian
fronts, etc.) and the “political revolutionary level../../” (specific
political parties including various “social actors../../”—i.e. the
specifically anarchist group). This is related to the concept of
“organization dualism../../” offered by some platformists, which however
does not include the “social political level.../../” That concept is
basically taken from Bakunin’s idea of the anarchist organization acting
apart from but alongside with the workers’ associations, steering it in
a revolutionary and libertarian direction. It is also contained more or
less in the Platform, although not as expressly as in the other
examples.
Gutiérrez makes an important step in analyzing “levels of
organization../../” in a more complex way than organizational dualism.
In principle, the concept of dualism is exactly on the mark, in the
sense that we must organize along ideological lines on the one hand, and
on the other hand along class lines. However, popular and social
organizations take on a more complex form than is contained in a
simplistic “dualist../../” model. But I would argue that Gutiérrez also
misses the point, for while his description of the “social political
level../../” is accurate in some sense, it is not as fundamentally
important as certain other factors which he does not discuss in detail.
More precisely, it is indeed a crucial level but its main form is not
the tendency as an “intermediate level.../../” Rather it must be
understood in terms of the actual political character of popular
organizations.
To elaborate, let us examine the “social level../../” more closely. This
is the level representing the actors of struggle, in other words
organized along class lines. In fact, it is the most basic level of
organization, for it is here that the proletariat organizes itself and
begins to develop a class consciousness. That consciousness, as
Gutiérrez rightly notes, is often not fully developed and takes many,
often contradictory forms. Nevertheless, class consciousness takes shape
in the course of real struggles and in the demands of these
organizations. Now, the tendencies which Gutiérrez speaks of (i.e. the
“social political level../../”) do indeed arise at the social level, but
it is not necessarily confined to intra-organizational debate. In
fact—and this if far more important—such political tendencies are often
formed along the lines of broader social organizations, organized along
class lines around revolutionary or libertarian principles.
That aspect is keenly felt in organized labor, where it has historically
meant the difference between class compromise and working-class
militancy. For us, it means the difference between an effective
organized presence and social impotence. Not that we should distance
ourselves from the less advanced elements among the working class—simply
that we should be aware of where our strong and weak points are, and
carefully note these political differences while gauging the overall
position of the class struggle and our influence on it.
There is another aspect of social organization, which is especially
important for our own organized activity—namely, the social terrain. It
is often assumed (as in syndicalism) that the center of gravity within
the class struggle is the workplace (the point of production). That
holds true to a degree, in that that is where class identity is
objectively forged in an economic sense. However, in fact it is very
often in the streets, or similar spaces of free social movement and
assembly, that revolutionary class consciousness is subjectively forged
as the basis of popular power. Thus it is in the common setting
(neighborhood, community, etc.) that the popular movement takes shape
and the class struggle becomes revolutionary, in that encompasses the
whole of society and attacks the ruling classes beyond the limited
sphere of the workplace. Gutiérrez gives a good example of this in his
article:
… identity as part of a certain actor of struggle becomes clear when the
struggle emerges, and around certain organisational traditions. To give
an example, in the year 1983 in Chile there erupted huge mass rallies
against the dictatorship of Pinochet; although the calls to struggle
came from the Miners’ unions, the relative weakness of the unions …
caused that the main space for protest were the slums — where the
workers lived — and other layers of society as well, including small
shop owners, and so on, took part on the struggle right beside workers.
But the identity of these struggles was created around certain
organisations and struggles that were located in that concrete space
-the slums in this case.… This reflects the dynamic nature of the social
actors, and of their identity. But the creation of such an identity, and
the creation of those actual demands, are the ground over which struggle
can flourish….
This is an indication of the intimate relationship between popular power
at the social level and revolutionary struggle at the political level.
In specific terms, as the class struggle intensifies, the scene of
struggle moves to a large extent from the production point (i.e. the
economic arena) to the streets, where it attacks the ruling class’s
political institutions. It is in that context that the popular movement
emerges as a definite political force, with the institutions of popular
power also functioning as insurrectional organs. This has historically
been the case in France, Russia, and to a lesser extent in Chile, Haiti,
Argentina, and elsewhere in Latin America, just to name a few
examples.[6] (The exceptions to this are armed uprisings, and even these
have a similar pattern in the form of guerrilla warfare, starting with
insignificant skirmishes, slowly gaining strength and moving toward a
larger offensive in preparation for the “knock-out blow,../../” often
accompanied by a general uprising behind enemy lines as an indication of
popular support.)
What of the specific anarchist organization (i.e. the “political
revolutionary level../../”)—that is to say, the revolutionary vanguard?
As “platformists,../../” we are agreed that such an organization is
needed to make our presence felt, to insert ourselves into the bubbling
movement and to steer it in a revolutionary direction. Clearly
propaganda is not enough—real action is of the highest importance to lay
the groundwork for a popular upheaval. But to what extent do we set the
tone of actions we partake in? Some platformists, in fact, continue to
argue against “vanguardism../../” on the assertion that it is
authoritarian, some even presenting it as though the inherent aim of any
vanguard is to seize power for itself in the manner of Bolshevism.
However, I would argue that to steer the working class in a
revolutionary direction in an organized, practical way is necessarily
vanguardist, in the sense that we are leading and preparing the way for
the social revolution—which, after all, is the whole purpose of
revolutionary anarchism.
We may find some insight into this question, from the standpoint of the
Platform, in experience of the Ukrainian peasant uprising during the
Russian Revolution, as recounted by its leader Nestor Makhno (who also
took part in drafting the Platform).[7] Regarding the role of the
anarchists, he wrote:
… in such busy times there was no question of invoking anarchism’s
abstract notions with their rejection of disciplined organization of
revolutionary forces, the upshot of which was that anarchists would have
found themselves isolated in revolutionary activity and stranded by the
very existence of the creative and productive which was in principle
theirs to play.
Shortly after he concluded:
We had furnished the best possible solution to this problem by
organizing the insurrection directly and paying no heed to the possible
carping from our fellow-believers regarding this vanguardist stance
which they saw as ill suited to our anarchist teachings.
Here, in fact, we might point to somewhat of insurrectionist approach,
when he speaks of “organizing the insurrection directly.../../” It is
worth noting that Makhno himself and the Gulyai-Polye anarchist group,
which organized the uprising, had been heavily involved in local armed
actions after the revolution of 1905, exactly along insurrectionist
lines (Gutiérrez specifically refers to this period in his article on
insurrectionalism—see note 3). On the other hand, there is a crucial
difference with this “vanguardist stance,../../” which is in the
importance laid on organized preparation, in contrast to typical
insurrectionist methods. In fact, the quotations cited above were
specifically addressing the question of why the Gulyai-Polye group had
withheld the insurrection for some time while they were preparing,
whereas some had urged them to unleash it right away on the belief that
this would incite a spontaneous rising all over the country.
The problem is more complex for us, given that we are outnumbered almost
everywhere, and the conditions of struggle in most cases are not as
clear-cut as in revolutionary Russia or Ukraine. The very fact that
there is no popular revolutionary movement to speak of in a country like
the United States (where I am writing from) has made it necessary to
limit our activities to more immediate issues and soften the tone of our
revolutionary objectives to the point that our goals seem substantially
no different from the “radical Left../../” in general. Yet that
approach, in the sense of issue-specific struggles, has only weakened
our movement when it comes to our higher objectives, whatever sympathy
it might inspire on the Left.
There is no easy way out of this dilemma, especially when it comes to
middle-class workers (the majority of workers in “first-world../../”
countries). But I believe that the solution is to be found by shifting
our focus from issue-center struggles to building popular organizations
that press forward those struggles in a revolutionary way. That is not
simply done through solidarity with unions and similar activities, but
through active, forceful efforts to organize the working class in such a
way that will advance the class struggle and reinforce their sense of
self-direction in opposition to authorities. That might involve not only
organizing at the point of production, but also organizing a permanent
basis of popular power in the streets, neighborhoods, communities, etc.
In light of everything above, I would thus identify the following
aspects of revolutionary organization, as far as where and how we ought
to organize:
at the places of the production and distribution, and consisting of
labor unions along with free farmers/peasants organizations (unions,
cooperatives, farmers alliances, etc., all depending on the status of
those involved).
immediate demands to insurrection (i.e. open revolt against the state
and ruling classes)—including everything in the economic terrain, along
with various political groupings as well neighborhood and community
organizations, focused on the streets and other public centers.
point where the working class internalizes revolutionary
ideals—consisting of propaganda and news distribution, public debate and
street oratory, study groups, etc., with the political groupings usually
at the center stage.
In reality these aspects frequently overlap, and at the same time the
factors involved at each level are immensely more complex than what I
have presented in attempting to sum up. At the frontline on every
terrain, however, must be the anarchists, equipped in their left hand
with a revolutionary program and in their right hand with a disciplined
organization and revolutionary practice.
Such an approach as outlined above does not in any way exclude struggles
around specific issues. Rather, it uses such struggles as a catalyst for
popular and revolutionary organization, as well as a mean of gauging our
strength. At the same time, it shifts the emphasis from rhetorically
calling upon the people to push their struggles further, to laying the
permanent basis on which to broaden and intensify the real class
struggle. That would require a keen understanding of both subjective and
objective conditions—the social terrain and actors of struggle, the form
and character of popular organizations, political influence of other
parties or tendencies, etc. It also requires a disciplined organization
firmly grounded in day-to-day revolutionary practice, with an effective
program around which to base such practice. Only in that way will our
movement free itself of its present limitations and acquire the
wherewithal to instigate a revolutionary movement.
In concluding, I will make a few general remarks. Our movement, from its
inception to the present, has always been revolutionary first and
foremost. Yet from the start we have failed again and again to fulfill
our revolutionary task. Now we find our ideals more relevant than ever,
faced as we are with social and environmental crises of unprecedented
proportions. Nothing is more important for us today than to organize and
prepare for the social revolution, inserting ourselves into the class
struggle and steering it in a libertarian and revolutionary direction.
Our approach in that task must consist of, on the one hand, laying the
groundwork for popular power, and on the other hand, collecting our best
militants along specifically anarchist lines whereby we will become the
vanguard of the revolution, making of popular power a real revolutionary
force free of statist orientation and poised to overthrow permanently
the ruling classes and the state. That purpose is summed up well in the
old slogan, which we might just as well adopt today and recover from its
statist defamers—the revolution in permanence.
[1] Kropotkin, in particular, understood and explained this in The Great
French Revolution. Despite some weaknesses and factual errors, it
remains nonetheless a fundamental work of historical interpretation. The
insurrectionist publisher Elephant Editions has produced an edition of
this book with a fine introduction by Alfredo Bonanno.
[2] Although the term “syndicalism../../” was not expressly used by
Bakunin, his activities in the First International and certain later
writings clearly contain its essential elements. For instance, in “The
Red Association../../” (1870) he spells out the idea of the general
strike, without naming it as such, by way of rejecting the classic
insurrection:
<On the day when the great proportion of the world’s workers have
associated themselves … and so firmly organized through their divisions
into one common solidarity of movement, no revolution, in the sense of
violent insurrection, will be necessary.>
Even so, not long after we find him reverting back to insurrection in
the context of the Paris Commune, as in his “Letters to a Frenchman on
the Present Crisis../../” (1870), not to mention his part in the Lyons
uprising.
[3] José Antonio Gutiérrez. “Notes on article ‘Anarchism, Insurrections
and Insurrectionalism.’../../” Published on Anarkismo, Dec. 27 2006:
).
[4] For an excellent sketch of syndicalism in France, see Alexandre
Skirda, Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from
Proudhon to May 1968. Published by AK Press, 2002 (translation by Paul
Sharkey).
[5] José Antonio Gutiérrez. “The problems posed by the concrete class
struggle and popular organisation.../../” Published on Anarkismo, Nov.
14 2005:
[6] Gutiérrez wrote an excellent analysis of the December 2001 rebellion
in Argentina (“Workers Without Bosses — Workers’ Self-Management in
Argentina../../”), published on Anarkismo, May 31 2005: <
[7] Nestor Makhno. The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays
(edited by Alexandre Skirda), pp. 6–18. Published by AK Press, 1996.