💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › karl-blythe-our-revolutionary-program.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:42:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Our Revolutionary Program
Author: Karl Blythe
Date: April 18, 2008
Language: en
Topics: revolutionary anarchism, platform
Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/8670

Karl Blythe

Our Revolutionary Program

In my previous “ Notes on Anarchist Organization,” I set out to lay the

groundwork for a fresh analysis of the organizational problem in the

anarchist movement. With the Organizational Platform and related

materials as the starting point in my analysis, I briefly proposed ways

of constructing or improving our organization in a practical way. Taking

up where I left off before, I will now discuss some of these points more

completely. I will then sketch out essentially what I view as the role

of our organization and revolutionary program. As an additional note, I

will make some clarifying remarks on the question of federalism, in

reply to the comments made by “Javier” regarding my previous essay. As

before, I will assume an overall familiarity with the subject by most

readers, and for those unfamiliar I refer again to Alexandre Skirda’s

work as an excellent starting point.

I concluded my “Notes” with some proposals on how to resolve the

question of ideological unity in the course of devising our program, at

the same time cultivating a revolutionary consciousness among our

militants. This would also solve the problem of collective

responsibility in a manner consistent with our anarchist principles

(including that of fraternal revolutionary discipline, as previously

discussed). Beyond that, it also takes on in specific and practical

terms an issue raised near the end of the Platform, where it states:

The General Union of Anarchists has a specific and concrete goal. For

the sake of the success of the social revolution, it must above all

choose and absorb from among the workers and peasants the most

revolutionary personnel most endowed with critical spirit.

This point brings up not only the question of how to select such

personnel, but again how they are to internalize the revolutionary

consciousness necessary to make reality out of the principles of

personal and collective responsibility in a libertarian organization.

The notion of “choosing and absorbing” from the masses the “most

revolutionary personnel most endowed with critical spirit” clearly

implies the need to carefully pick out and select the most capable

individuals from among the popular masses. This is no simple matter of

spouting off rhetoric to whoever will listen and hoping to win over the

more advanced elements through propaganda. It is even more than simply a

matter of choosing those who appear in their ideas to be closest to our

thinking. Rather, it is a matter of grasping certain qualities (i.e.

“critical spirit”) which make for a powerful revolutionary force when

harnessed. In short, it is more a question of revolutionary instinct

than of calculating where one stands on some theoretical political

spectrum.

With that understanding of revolutionary potential in mind, I suggest

that the best method of drawing out such characteristics is by ongoing

thorough study of revolutionary history (that is when personal

experience does not suffice). Therefore I believe it is crucial that

this sort of material be put to use in elaborating our program—for the

more that is understood of past revolutionary experience, the more we

will understand our own struggle and the direction it must take. From

the standpoint of organization, this means using such material in

ideologically training and preparing militants, by means of study groups

or individual study of certain fundamental materials as a prerequisite

of membership in our organization. That would also help weed out

would-be members who lack commitment or discipline, ensuring a higher

degree of these qualities within the organization.

I should qualify this proposal in practical terms. The conditions we

face (in the United States at least, that being my personal vantage

point) require us to thoroughly explain our ideals and our program to

the masses, often consisting of middle-class workers and young people

domesticated and influenced by bourgeois materialism. Above all we wage

the ideological struggle, in particular where significant democratic

rights exist along with considerable economic prosperity (although in

the U.S. these are increasingly being eroded). Unless the people in

imperialist countries are made to understand the violent and exploitive

role of the state and capitalism in other countries as well as at home,

there is no real chance of a revolutionary upheaval (at least until the

market fails and the working middle class finds itself in poverty, many

signs of which are becoming imminent—and even then it will lack a

revolutionary consciousness, being rooted entirely in material

self-interest). That is why it is of utmost importance to instill in our

ranks (and from there the masses) a complete understanding and

internalization of our theoretical program.

In addressing the problem of organization, it is fitting to look back at

actual revolutionary history as I have been saying. Specifically, the

work of Nestor Makhno and the Makhnovist movement in the Russian

Revolution, and the later writings of Makhno and Arshinov are

fundamental in that respect. I highlight Makhno’s essay “On the 10^(th)

Anniversary of the Makhnovist Insurgent Movement in the Ukraine” (in The

Struggle Against the State and Other Essays) in which he clearly

explained the organizational dilemma in the context of the Ukraine

during the Russian Revolution:

… for an active revolutionary vanguard, this was a time of great strain,

for it required painstaking preparation of the uprising. Our

Gulyai-Polye libertarian communist group was just such a vanguard, and

events led it to pose the question of whether it should assume complete

responsibility for leading the movement….

Describing the disorganization and among the anarchists and resulting

disconnect with the masses, he concludes:

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 anarchist teachings. Thus in practice we

… concentrated instead on seeing the struggle through to complete

victory.

He then explains more generally:

… this required that revolutionary anarchism, if it sought to … fulfill

its active task in contemporary revolutions, face up to immense demands

of an organizational nature whether in the training of its personnel or

in defining its dynamic role in the early days of the revolution when

the toiling masses were still groping their way.

Note the last point regarding the “training of personnel” and defining

anarchism’s “dynamic role in the early days of the revolution.” This is,

of course, exactly what Makhno and others sought to achieve in the

Platform, albeit with some inevitable limitations, and it is the same

question we must “face up to” presently. Aside from that, I highlight

the above quotations by way of bringing up to additional points relevant

to our program which I have not yet discussed.

First—regarding “vanguardism.” This is a notion that is often denounced

as authoritarian, mainly due to its Marxist-Leninist connotations. The

assumption by many anarchists is that a “revolutionary vanguard”

necessarily aims to conquer state power and wield it dictatorially, as

is typically the case with Marxist-Leninist parties. However, they fail

to consider that this is only the case if the aim of the revolution

itself is to seize state power—which is not the case in anarchism. Now,

there are some Marxists who claim that anarchism in fact is not

revolutionary at all, because they believe a revolution must always

culminate in seizing of state power. We anarchists have always argued

that the social revolution will only be complete when the state is

abolished, and therefore we aim not to conquer state power but to

completely overthrow the state without reconstructing it. All of this is

well-known by anarchists—they would not be anarchists otherwise. Yet

somehow many anarchists fail to recognize that likewise a revolutionary

vanguard need not aim to seize state power. On the contrary, any

anarchist group which takes upon itself the responsibility for leading

and instigating a revolutionary upheaval is acting as a vanguard. Not

only is this compatible with anarchist teachings, it is the very essence

of revolutionary anarchism.

As anarchists, we are everywhere and always in revolt against authority.

That is why, as Makhno wrote in “Our Organization” (in The Struggle

Against the State and Other Essays), anarchism “is inherently

revolutionary and can adopt only revolutionary modes of struggle against

its enemies.” Or as it was put by the syndicalist Fernand Pelloutier,

the anarchists are “rebels around the clock, men truly godless,

masterless and nationless, irreducible enemies of every despotism, moral

and material…” (qtd. in A. Skirda, Facing the Enemy p. 66). In other

words, we are always in the frontline of the revolution, leading on the

class struggle. It is for this exact reason that we are usually a

minority and are accused of being anti-democratic or even dictatorial

for seeking to “impose our beliefs” on the masses (i.e. for upholding

our ideals even though we are outnumbered).

This position is by its nature “vanguardist,” in the sense that we march

ahead of the masses and prepare the revolution while the workers are

still “groping their way.” This is explained in the Platform as well.

For instance, in defining the role of the anarchists it states:

“anarchism should become the guiding light of the social revolution….

The spearhead position of anarchist ideas in the revolution means

anarchist theoretical direction of events” in a non-statist way. In the

final paragraphs we read: “As regards the workers’ trades and

revolutionary organizations in the towns, the General Union of

Anarchists will have to escalate all its efforts so as to become their

spearhead and theoretical mentor.” And of course the closing words:

Emanating from the heart of the masses of the toilers, the General Union

of Anarchists takes part in all aspects of their life, always and

everywhere bringing the spirit of organization…. Only thus can it

fulfill its role, its theoretical and historic mission in the toilers’

social revolution and become the organized instigation of their process

of emancipation.

Thus despite the different words used (i.e. “spearhead,” “mentor” or

“instigator”), one can clearly sense the notion of a vanguard in the

Platform (some translations even use the word “vanguard” in place of

“instigator,” although Skirda points out the translation is inaccurate).

That said, there is some difference between the role ascribed to the

“General Union of Anarchists” by the Platform, and Makhno’s description

of the role of the Gulyai-Polye group in the Makhnovist insurgent

movement, bringing me to my other point.

Second—regarding insurrectionism. Referring back to Makhno’s writings,

we can gather in addition to “vanguardism” certain characteristics of

insurrectionism, specifically where he speaks of “organizing the

insurrection directly,” which is fitting enough for an anarchist. What

strikes me as more important is how to apply this particular example

with all of its lessons to the conditions of a country like the United

States. Now, it seems to me out of the question to speak of armed

struggle in the present conditions, both for moral and strategic

reasons. Even so, it is well worth examining the possible applications

of insurrectionist ideas. This is important, in part because our

anarchist principles require that we “adopt only revolutionary modes of

struggle” (implying that we disregard bourgeois legality in favor of

militant direct action by the working class), and in part out of

recognition of the extraordinary place of Italian insurrectionism in the

anarchist movement.

Out of all the historical currents of thought and action to spring from

anarchism, the two meriting the most distinction for their practical

contributions to the movement are syndicalism and insurrectionism (I do

not include “Platformism” because its chief contributions have been

theoretical, there being no outstanding examples of its practical

achievements until recent times). The former, while it deserves credit

for firmly establishing anarchism as a credible working-class movement,

must also be criticized by anarchists on the grounds that it has

consistently devolved into reformist tendencies typical among labor

unions. The possible exception to this is in the Spanish Revolution—and

there it must be said that syndicalism (vis-à-vis the CNT-FAI) played as

much a role in holding back the revolution as in advancing it, for much

the same reasons that it has elsewhere stopped short at limited reforms.

In short, it is clear that revolutionary syndicalism is in no way

“sufficient unto itself” as was believed by its original anarchist

exponents.

As for insurrectionism, although comparatively recent as a specific

theory, its essential ideas are rooted in elementary anarchist

teachings, seeing as anarchism itself was born of insurrectional

tendencies in particular coming out of the French Revolution (and in

fact going back much earlier). Bakunin and other early anarchists

(notably Malatesta, a leading Italian anarchist) espoused many ideas and

methods that were essentially insurrectionist (although in later years

Bakunin shifted towards a syndicalist approach foreshadowing the idea of

the general strike, influenced by the First International). In addition,

we can point to the remarkable record of insurrectionism—in Italy and

Spain in the anti-fascist resistance, in carrying on anarchist

resistance in Italy, as well as in insurrectionists’ steady stream of

insightful analyses on international issues (in particular on the Middle

East)—as proof of its continuing importance to revolutionary anarchism.

In all of these regards, the outstanding commitment and extraordinary

instinct for action on the ground clearly exemplify the profound

revolutionary capacity of insurrectionism.

On the other hand, despite the theoretical insight of insurrectionist

writings at a general level, insurrectionist groupings have never been

able to apply these ideas beyond isolated actions, even at the height of

their popularity in Italy. Now, it is possible that I am misinterpreting

(I am no expert when it comes to the details of the post-World War Two

anarchist movement in Italy), but it seems to me that one basic reason

for this inability to generalize their groups’ activities in a broader

way is the lack of a disciplined organization to coordinate their most

effective methods and actions. Now, if only the basic idea of the

Organizational Platform were applied to their movement, perhaps (there

is no guarantee) such a generalization would take place, laying the

basis for an organized revolutionary upheaval to occur. In that way, we

would shortly find the best and most far-reaching insights of

insurrectionist theory become reality.

Beyond that, I would again argue that the common preference among

insurrectionists for armed struggle as a mode of action is out of touch

with the objective and subjective conditions of a country like the

United States (I will not address other countries’ situations). We have

seen amply demonstrated how armed “guerrilla” groups (if it is even fair

to call them such) in the U.S. achieve nothing of value and only serve

to discredit radicalism and alienate the people from revolutionary

ideas. Even popular riots (such as in Seattle) fail to either make a

significant impact in the struggle or to win over the broad layers of

masses to the cause of rebellion. That is not surprising for anyone who

is in touch with the popular mentality, and for that matter it should

not be surprising that violence would be viewed distastefully by the

masses (after all, anarchist theory deals largely with the institutional

violence of the state). Remember also that it was similar activities

that first led to anarchism’s discredit among the widespread public, and

it was mainly the advent of syndicalism that revived it as a meaningful

popular movement.

In light of those considerations, I believe it is of urgent necessity

that we develop a nonviolent approach that is nonetheless militant in a

revolutionary sense. Our methods must be strictly in keeping with the

line of intransigent working-class militancy in a real sense of the term

(i.e. “only revolutionary modes of struggle,” and also as expressed in

the Platform), and at the same time must consist of nonviolent tactics

capable of winning over the popular masses and of securing the moral

high ground in the struggle. Despite the typical limitations of

nonviolence and of the ideological shortcomings of pacifism, there is a

rich history and a wealth of literature on the subject to start off from

in devising a more complete strategy of militant nonviolence. Expanding

on that notion, it is also worth studying the historical examples and

possibilities of nonviolent insurrection.

All that said, I am personally inclined towards a more informal style of

organizing and flexibility in our tactics and our practical program. The

fundamental point in my opinion is not the need for an all-encompassing

organization (which by itself would simply lead to bureaucracy), but

rather the importance of a coherent direction for the movement as a

whole, and for a consistent and coordinated practice within our ranks.

Thus any larger organization should be constructed on the basis of a

firmly-grounded practice by local militants, and our program should not

be strictly defined in terms of some “manifesto” or “platform” (although

such documents may be helpful as point of reference), but should rather

be the living expression of our general and day-to-day activity, subject

to ongoing revision and refinement until our fundamental goal is

achieved. In that sense, the informal approach that is favored by

insurrectionists can be a healthy weight against bureaucratic tendencies

arising as we overhaul our ranks.

Stepping back, I believe that the best starting point for such an

approach is in forming study groups to read and discuss revolutionary

theory and history, with a view to internalizing through personal

understanding our anarchist ideals, and setting out with a clear sense

of our practical program. As I have already said, this is not a new

idea—its inspiration can be found in the studies organized by the

Gulyai-Polye anarchist group and Makhno himself (see A. Skirda, Nestor

Makhno—Anarchy’s Cossack ch. 4–5, in particular pp. 22–4 and p. 30), not

to mention many other anarchist groups. However, its systematic use in

this regard has not been applied fully or consistently enough for the

most part. Furthermore, this approach is more inclined towards informal

personal interaction, as opposed to a “committee” style of interaction

that contributes to bureaucratic trends and a certain lifelessness

stemming from pointless formalism.

I will now wrap up with my reply to the comments by “Javier” on

federalism, in regard to my “Notes.” In his comments he remarked that I

“missed the point” on federalism, which to him is “one of the biggest

misunderstandings common in anarchism.” He then quoted a paragraph from

the Platform summing up their view of federalism, and followed with an

explanation of the confusion over this notion stemming partly from the

differing interpretations among the different anarchist currents. All of

that is perfectly on the mark in my opinion. However, there is some

confusion in turn about “democratic centralism” and the issue of

autonomous organizations within federations. This is probably due in

part to my own lack of clarity by not including specific examples to

illustrate my views. I will therefore explain my views in more specific

terms below.

Regarding centralism, Javier writes: “Centralism means moving the center

of gravity of decision making from the base, that is the whole

organization, to higher more reduced bodies…” as is typical of Marxist

parties. The assumption is that “centralism” is always bureaucratic and

top-down. Fine, we can accept this definition given on a historical

basis. It is also only natural that “freedom of speech, unity of action”

is, as Javier says, merely a statement of intention, as is also the case

with the Platform. But the question is how to apply stated intentions in

practice. The intention with democratic centralism is to apply this

principle to the party structure, in the sense that decisions

democratically reached by the organization are carried out by members

with the strictest discipline.

The problem is not with the term “centralist” (a purely semantical

issue), but with the fact that leadership is actually centered in

“higher more reduced bodies” and directives bureaucratically issued down

to the base. In short, the “democratic” aspect is a façade, or at least

that is the usual case as with Bolshevism proper. Yet even many Marxists

have attacked this tendency as conflicting with the principle of

democratic centralism, proposing other forms more directly democratic

and focused at the base level (i.e. a non-hierarchical format). My point

is not that we should adopt the slogan of democratic centralism, but

that we should take the best aspects of this organizational principle

(not its typical applications) together with the best aspects of

federalism—which as I see it would be more precise than simply speaking

of “federalism,” given the confusion surrounding the term.

In my “Notes” I stated: “many anarchist federations have resorted

instead to systems of indirect representation said to assure greater

autonomy to component organizations,” which ought to be avoided and the

latter reduced as far as possible to an intermediary role. I failed to

specify with examples, however, which may have caused confusion, for

Javier writes: “it is not a matter of middlemans which are to be avoided

but of operational and political flexibility and creating intermediary

stances of coordination.” Of course, I take no issue with this idea,

which is more or less identical to my own views. When I speak of

component organizations’ autonomy and of indirect representation, I am

referring to the practices of some syndicalist federations. The prime

example of this would be the French CGT. To quote Skirda (Facing the

Enemy p. 69):

Voting there [in Congress] was on the basis of mandates, not in

proportion with the membership of each body or affiliated organization,

but by grouping—this was a rejection of the democratism sought by the

reformists who accounted for a majority of the membership numerically

but controlled only a minority of the organizations represented.

In other words, the CGT was not a union but a confederation of

independent unions, and federal organs were set up not to represent the

members but rather the affiliated organizations. This confederal

approach is clearly anti-democratic and in my view inconsistent with

libertarian principles except insofar as the affiliated organizations

are not accountable to the confederation—i.e. unless they are

autonomous. The issue also comes up, ironically, in the debate within

CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War. To quote the preface to Agustin

Guillamón’s work on The Friends of Durruti Group: 1937–1939:

The dalliance of the organizations’ higher committees with politicians

and their pursuit of a unified and disciplined policy as an aid to them

… had led to certain unwelcome changes in the practices of those

organizations.

It then quotes the journal Ideas on the “proprieties of trade union

federalism”:

The so-called higher committees ought to be bound by the accords of the

trade union organization. The unions dispose and the committees see to

it that the dispositions are implemented. That is what federalism is,

whatever else is done is dictatorship….

A little later we read of CNT leaders’ efforts to expel the Friends of

Durruti, and of the Friends’ response. According to the preface—“No one

ever joined the CNT, the Confederation. All CNT members belonged to

local unions and federations and sovereignty resided in these.” It then

quotes the Friends directly:

We can only be expelled from the confederal organization by the

assemblies of the unions. Local and comarcal plenums are not empowered

to expel any comrade. We invite the committees to raise the matter of

the ‘Friends of Durruti’ in the assemblies, which is where the

organization’s sovereignty resides.

Again the confederal principle that each trade union is an independent

organization and the federation is nothing but a conglomeration of these

independent unions.

That approach has some place in syndicalist structures when it comes to

economic problems of a technical nature; but in terms of political or

“anti”-political direction, there should be no question but that the

source of leadership is the entire membership (i.e. “one man, one vote”)

and not the affiliated organizations. Of course, the confederal approach

is to be expected in a trade union federation, which is in part why

trade unions are insufficient as revolutionary organizations. Not that

they ought to be abandoned as a form of working-class

organization—simply that it is not “sufficient unto itself” to bring

about the revolution, and certainly does not compose a specifically

anarchist organization. That requires a specifically anarchist

“vanguard” group with a clear program to lead the struggle forward and

lay groundwork for a revolutionary upheaval.