💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › workers-solidarity-movement-anarchism-today.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:52:03. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Anarchism today
Author: Workers Solidarity Movement
Date: 1992
Language: en
Topics: post-soviet, anarchist movement, Workers Solidarity, 1990s
Source: Retrieved on 9th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws92/anarchism34.html
Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 34 — Spring 1992.

Workers Solidarity Movement

Anarchism today

AT THE MOMENT the “Socialist Movement” has all but collapsed. Despite

the fact that high unemployment, war and mass starvation would point to

the need for a coherent anti-capitalist alternative most socialists are

confused and demoralised. The reason is simple, both the reformist and

Leninist parties are paying for their legacy of betrayal of socialism in

this century. What they conceived socialism to be has been totally

discredited. As anarchists it is important to realise that their are

both advantages and drawbacks to these developments.

The vast majority of those that referred to themselves as socialists saw

the Stalinist countries as being ahead of capitalism, a large amount

even went so far as to refer to these regimes as “actually existing

socialism”. To these people the collapse of these regimes has resulted

in the belief that socialism itself cannot work. To anarchists there is

no such problem, we realised that the USSR stopped moving towards

socialism when the Bolsheviks destroyed workers democracy between 1918

and 1921.

IS SOCIALISM DEAD?

The fact that most of yesterdays ‘socialists’ are now saying socialism

is no longer on the agenda is and will have a major effect on the level

of struggle in society over the next few years. Most of those workers

who were activists in unions and campaigns were either members of the

various state socialist groups or were broadly sympathetic to them. Many

of these people are affected by the inevitable demoralisation of seeing

their parties disintegrate.

In the ideal situation we anarchists would be in the position to move in

and fill this gap. We would be able to get across the argument that it

is not socialism that has collapsed but rather reformism, Leninism and

Stalinism. We could say that anarchism demonstrates that there is no

authoritarian way to socialism. In reality however the anarchist

movement is much too small in most countries to be able to get across

these arguments on a mass basis. Rather those few small organisations

like ourselves are trying to make what impact we can.

This means that although it is now easier to put across anarchist

politics to people searching for an alternative to capitalism there are

now far fewer people looking for such an alternative. This is the

problem we face in the short term.

LABOUR PARTY BLUES

Those groups who drew their traditions from Lenin and Stalin are already

collapsing or have collapsed. A few who have the tradition of not being

such hard line Leninists are trying to defend Lenin from anarchist

criticism. That other large ‘socialist’ tradition of Social Democracy

(or labourism) is also in deep trouble. The reasons for this are not

hard to find.

The labour parties always accommodated that section of the ruling class

who saw stability as being insured through policies of co-operation with

the trade union bureaucracy. The labour parties were the creation of the

trade union bureaucrats and fought to reduce class antagonism through

the introduction of the welfare state, arbitration procedures, national

plans between the bosses and the union bureaucrats etc. In the past the

far-left convinced large numbers of activists to join the labour parties

either to transform them or expose the party leadership.

Internationally these policies meet with various degrees of success from

the end of the second world war on as a mixture of expanding capitalism

and the threat of industrial unrest led to most states taking up many

parts of the Labour parties programme. By the late 70’s however this

expansion had slowed or stopped and the Labour parties where they

remained in power led the offensive on behalf of the capitalists to

drive down wages and living standards. In Britain this offensive was

continued by the Thatcher government which held power in England

throughout the eighties. In many other European countries and in

Australia it was the Social Democrats who carried out the cuts in the

80’s.

A DECADE OF DEFEATS

Naturally enough workers resisted this offensive and won a few initial

victories. The trade union bureaucracy however turned increasingly to

trying to work out plans which would limit job losses rather than

outright opposition to these cuts. Strikes like those in Liverpool, the

printers at Wapping, the P+O workers and the national miners strike of

1984 were isolated, with the bureaucrats doing all they could to prevent

sympathy action. The left in the unions was unwilling to fight the

bureaucrats so such strikes lost despite heroic efforts by those on

strike.

The lesson most workers took was that job losses could not be fought

against, the 80’s in most of the western countries was a decade where

defeat followed defeat. The left rather then seeing these losses as

coming from their reliance on the Labour party and the union bureaucrats

to led the fightback drew entirely the wrong lesson. They thought

“Thatcherism” represented some sort of new, undefeatable phenomenon. A

variety of theories which sort to explain that the working class no

longer existed or that class politics were no longer relevant came into

being. There was nothing new in this, in the mid 60’s similar ideas that

the western working class had sold out to consumerism abounded, these of

course were smashed by the events of 1968, particularly the general

strike in France.

Most of those on the left who didn’t go along with this analysis were

Leninists of one sort or another who looked to the soviet union as some

sort of example. The collapse of the soviet union had a similar if not

larger effect on these people. Thus at the start of 1992 we find the

situation where despite the fact that capitalism is in obvious trouble

there is almost no organised alternative to it. The radical alternatives

of yesterday have become to-days jokes.

SOME THINGS CHANGE

The collapse of the confidence of the reformist labour parties may not

be final. A British Social Attitudes survey reported in the Guardian

(Nov 20 ’91) revealed 83% supported the “Keynesian policy of fighting

unemployment through investing in construction planning” and 9 out of 10

people wanted more investment in the NHS even if taxes had to be raised

to pay for it. Yet at a time when Thatcherism has been abandoned as

inadequate by the bosses, many on the left still consider it to have

destroyed the whole socialist project.

In the 80’s there were many changes in the composition of the working

class. In the west at least the industrial working class dwindled as the

white collar working class grew. Many of the largest industrial

workplaces were broken up and dispersed commonly with the aim of

weakening the unions involved. In Ireland there are only 6 sites

employing over 1000 people in the same company. For those who saw

socialism as being introduced by steelworkers and miners wearing cloth

caps and clogs this represented a big blow

In Ireland Irish companies have increasingly come to replace

multinationals. Of the top 10 companies by turnover only two (at

positions 5 and 10) are multinationals. In the top 50 there are a total

of 10 multinationals. This demonstrates how the southern Irish ruling

class has successfully established itself as a junior partner of

international capitalism. Those socialists in Ireland who saw the

multi-nationals rather then our native capitalist class as the main

problem in the south are being forced to reconsider.

There is nothing new in all this, throughout his century conditions have

changed for socialists. Similar ideas that socialism was dead were being

thrown around before the struggles of 1968 shook the world. We have to

continually take these changes into account. We have to continually

elaborate our ideas, and test them by involving our self where-ever

there is struggle against the bosses. Any theory is only as good as the

practical guidance it gives in day to day struggle. One of the most

important aspect of any socialist organisation is the ability to throw

out all that is irrelevant (or wrong) in its tradition.

WHY ANARCHISM?

It is becoming clear that the bulk of what has been referred to as

socialism up to now is in fact nothing of the sort. The vast bulk of the

theory and practise of the last 70 years needs to be thrown in the bin.

Unfortunately most of the Leninist groups are avoiding such an exercise

preparing instead to do a botched plastering job over the appearing

cracks. They have chosen to follow the same paths as the Communist

parties did and will probably suffer a similar fate.

The vast bulk of those leaving the Leninist and labour parties are just

disappearing from any form of politics or activism. The few who are

trying to continue the anti-capitalist fight in a new way are making old

mistakes. For the most part rather then seeing their version of

socialism as flawed they have come to see capitalism as triumphant.

There is a tradition however which refused to see socialism as something

being imposed by a minority wielding state power on behalf of a

majority. The tradition of anarchism always rejected both the crude

authoritarianism of Leninism and the reformism of the labour parties.

It is for this reason that we call ourselves anarchists. Anarchism as a

tradition is no doubt flawed, at times even badly flawed but it has

always been better than any of the alternatives on offer. What’s more,

it has been capable of the sort of fierce self-criticism needed to

continually develop. Throughout the last 120 years it has always been

the anarchist (or a sub-group of anarchists) that has developed the best

position on the events of the day. Most importantly anarchism unlike

reformism, Leninism and Trotskyism has never imposed dictatorship and

massacre on the working class.

THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL

Within the first international, in the last century the anarchists

consistently argued against a turn to reformism and parliamentary

elections. They argued against the view that the state apparatus could

be seized and used to introduce socialism. The introduction of socialism

could only be carried out by the working class itself not by a minority

of revolutionaries acting through the state. They also argued against

the emerging strain within Marxism that argued that the revolution could

only come about if the working class was under the dictatorship of a

minority of intellectuals. With the advantage of hindsight it is clear

that these arguments explain much of what went wrong with the socialist

movement in the 20^(th) century.

At the same time the anarchists showed they were capable of organising

the scale of struggle needed to threaten capitalism. In the USA in the

1880’s the anarchists were organising a huge campaign for the 8 hour day

involving demonstrations of greater than 100 000 workers. Here the

anarchists showed their ability to connect building for a socialist

revolution with the winning of reforms from the bosses. In 1886 this was

to result in 8 anarchists being sentenced to death in Chicago, an event

May day originated in.

At the end of the century Anarchists in the US, most notably Emma

Goldman were to take up the fight to unionize women workers and break

the ban on contraception. At a time when most other socialists saw

women’s liberation as a side issue the anarchists were fighting against

those aspects which most oppressed working class women.

THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL

The anarchist fight against the use of parliament by socialists

continued when the Second international (labour party) was set up in

1889. Anarchists attempted to argue against reformism at the first three

international congresses in 1889, 1891 and 1893. The 1893 congress

passed a motion excluded all non-trade union bodies which did not

recognise the need for parliamentary action. The next congress in 1896

however included anarchists who had been made delegates by trade unions.

They were physically assaulted when they attempted to speak and a motion

from the German social-democrats ???????? Liebknecht and August Bebel

and Eleanore Aveling (Marx’s daughter) banned all those who were

‘anti-parliamentarians’ from future congresses. The anarchists then went

on to form their own international, which still exists in the form of

the IWA-AIT, an international organisation of anarcho-syndicalist trade

unions and groups.

The Russian revolution of 1917 confirmed the warnings made by the

anarchists some 50 years earlier in the first international. The

degeneration of the revolution was due to the attempt to use the old

state apparatus to introduce socialism and the Bolsheviks belief that

the working class were incapable of making the decisions required to

insure the revolution survived. Similarly in 1919 the massacre of German

workers by the German labour party confirmed the anarchist warnings to

the first and second international of the logical outcome of

parliamentary action.

The Russian revolution was the first real test of anarchism in a

revolution. The anarchist movement at the time was comparatively small

but it had major influence particularly in the factory committees and in

the Southern Ukraine. The anarchist were amongst its foremost supporters

and were the only group to support the dissolving of the constituent

assembly on the grounds that the Soviets were a more democratic form of

government. (In contrast the Bolsheviks were clear that they wished to

use the soviets rather then the constituent assembly because they had

more support in the soviets).

The anarchists fought to push the revolution as far as it would go,

recognising that this would maximise the willingness of Russian workers

and workers internationally to defend it. When the Bolsheviks started to

impose their dictatorship the anarchists fought them through the soviets

and factory committees. By 1921 the anarchists alone recognised that the

revolution had been destroyed and either died trying to bring about a

third revolution or fled into exile to warn the worlds workers of what

had happened.

One major (correct) criticism of the anarchist tradition was that during

the Spanish revolution, four of the ‘leaders’ of the CNT went into

government. A sizeable portion of the anarchists in the CNT formed the

only consistent faction pushing for finishing off the revolution. This

group called the Friends of Durutti are discussed elsewhere in this

issue.

FASCISM AND WAR

After 1936 Anarchism in Europe was wiped out. From the rise of fascism

under Mussolini in Italy in the early 20’s the anarchists had stressed

the need for workers to physically smash fascism. In Italy at the time

however there attempts to do so were undermined by the Social-democrats.

In Germany the anarchists were smashed by Hitler as he came to power,

many of them dying subsequently in concentration or death camps. With

the fascist occupation of Europe during the second world war many of

other anarchists were to share their fate.

In Italy, France and Bulgaria at least there were anarchist resistance

groups throughout the war. In Italy they were involved in the land

seizures after the war but were defeated by the combined forces of the

Italian communist party and the Allies. In Bulgaria the anarchist

movement after the war grew rapidly but was wiped out in 1948 by the

Bulgarian C.P. Again hundreds were executed or sent to concentration

camps. Anarchists in Poland and other Eastern European countries shared

a similar fate.

Anarchism to-day is growing in all of the Eastern European countries. As

it was isolated for some 70 years in the soviet union and 40 years in

Eastern Europe it will be a slow and painful process. In the west the

anarchist movement grew slowly throughout the 80’s and is now in the

process of re-examining the anarchist tradition. Long years of isolation

meant that a lot of rubbish has accumulated so this re-examination is

vitally important

The tradition in which the anarchists stand is one that socialists need

to identify with. For many on the left this will be a difficult process.

They were weaned on a diet of slander when it came to anarchism, either

being told that anarchists were police agents or that they were not real

socialists at all and wanted a return to feudalism. We must resist the

temptation to avoid this problem by going “beyond anarchism”. The state

has been the Achilles heel of 20^(th) century socialism, it is not an

issue to be fudged.